Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-07-14
Finds for F. J. Hagenbarth in
Game JunghandeI Option
Case Today.
THE DECISION IS IMPORTANT
Sale Of Properties of the Ludwig Cop
per Mining Company Of
nevada Involved.

A decision which will so down In
! mining law as the settlement Of one Of
4 the most important points In contracts
4 Of option TO purchase mines. was made
by the supreme court this morning
+. when IL reversed the decision OF the
lower court In the case Of Joseph f.
Caine and Max Junghandcl against r.
j Hegenbarth which decision gave
Judgment for Caine and Junghandei
for $4,000 on the sale Of a $1,000
900 option on certain mines of the
Ludwig Copper Mining company Of
Nevada.
The decision is 10 important that n
( review OF the facts Is opportune, on
Jan. IL, 1907. Joseph r. Caine and Max
Junghandel entered into an agreement
with the Ludwig Copper Mining COM
pany Of Nevada, whereby they were
given ali option to purchase certain
copper mines belonging to the said
company. The option was good Tor 80
days at the stipulated price Of 81 OO0,-
900. provided Caine and Junghandei
paid $500 of the purchase price within
% days from Jan. IL and thereafter.
u the option eYentunted In sale, the
purchase price was 10 be paid s2iiO00
I'm two months. $3.50 900 in four months.
s25000O IN six months and 3250,O0O in
eight months.
This option agreement was deposited
with the Anglo California Bank OF san
Francisco with a check for IS 900 on
Feb I. 1907 Caine entered into "a writ
ten agreement with the appellant, r.
j Hagenbarth. whereby the option was
assigned for 100000 payable 10000
down. $4,000 when the appellant should
be required to make the first payment
on the mine and the remaining $3.50. 900
In proportionate amounts and at the
time the Ludwig company should be
paid. on the sale.
The appellant, Hagenbarth. paid the
respondents $4,000 on the 100000 and
advanced $1,000 TO keep the option In
force 80 days.
REFUSED TO TAKE TT.
The appellant after examining the
ground workings of the minc, however,
refused 10 take up the option, that H.,
20 buy the mine; and thereafter made
no further payment.
When the second payment Of $4,000
became due the Ludwig company, Game
and Junghande demanded tho $4,000
due them on tho sale Of no option,
and later demanded the $4,000 due
them when the third payment became
due the Ludwig company, both Of which
demands were refused The respond
ents. Calne and ndel.immedlately
for the amounts due and we're finally
given judgment for 500. 900 with inter-
est
IIaRenbarth appealed the case and
now the supreme court has sent II
back with the instruction that neither
party recover costs and the decision be
reversed,
THE OPINION
Justice Frick wrote the opinion all
concurring. In part IL reads, Would
II be reasonable 20 assume that the
appellant as q prudent business man
would Internationally agree to pay
100000 for tho right TO purchase prop
erty OF unknown or speculative value
which right by it's own terms must
terminate within 80 DAYS from the time
he acquired the right?
rs II reasonable, therefore, To as
sumo that a man, regardless OF his
wealth or resources would uncondl-
tionally agree 10 pay the sum Of
100000 for the mere right 70 pur-
chase for the period OF only SO days
property or unknown and uncertain
value, the price OF which was fixed
at 100000? We do not hesitate to
say that all reasonable men would
agree that no reasonably prudent
business man would enter into such
an agreement Did the appellant agree
To thsf Again we say no
Tho real Intention OF the contract
was not that upon the happening OF
an event an existing debt should he
paid, but II was that az said time an
obligation should be created which
was 10 be discharged at the same
time"
Hence. continues the opinion in
substance, as the payments on tho
purchase 81 the mine were never
made the payments on the purchase
Of the option ala not arise AZ obliga-
tions Had appellant Trurchasod the
mine he would have been forced To
nav for the oDtion