The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1915-12-09
Abstract of Decisions of Interest to
Mining Companies and Stockholders


mining stock to compel the specific
performance of contract of sale By
another stakeholder and the transfer
to him of the shares of stock under
the agreement, court OF equity will
not decree the specific performance OF
the agreement where the purchase
price was -255,000 for stock of the In
trinsic value of 3624,0O0, and where
the purchaser had paid only $1,000 and
ne had failed to make other payments
according to the terms, and where
time was specified to be of the es-
sence of the contract, and the sums
paid on the contract were to be for
feited In case Of the failure of the pur-
chaser to complete the agreement;
and the buyer can not justify his de-
fault In such payments on the ground
that the seller had refused him the
privilege OF examining the mining
property, such a refusal being the al
legged efficient cause Of the buyers de-
fault, where the buyer himself was
stakeholder and had the right as such
to inspect the mining property, ana
where the inspection of the property
was not made a condition to the per
torrance of the buyers agreement
Hobbs v. Davis California;, 14s Pac.
1885, p. 734.
Fraudulent Sale of Mining Stock
Dump Part of Mine--Presunp-
ton as to the Value.
In an action for damages for false
and fraudulent representations In the
sale OF stock of mining corporation.
and where the false statement was to
the effect that there was a half mill
lion dollars worth of ore on the dump
ready to mill and sufficient to run a
mill from to s years, on proof that
the officers of the corporation report
ed the mine as worthless, together
with proof tending to show an aban-
donment Of the property, a jury may
assume that the dump, which was a
part OF the mine. was also worthless.
Rogers v. Resented lWisconsin).
149 Northwestern, SO, p. SO, October,
1914.
Fraudulent Sale of Mining Stock
Damages.
In an action for damages for false
and fraudulent representations in ma
King sale of stock in mining com
pany, where the stock was falsely rep
resented to be worth so cents on the
dollar and where the proof showed
that the market value of such stock
was nothing, or not to exceed cents
per share, the defendant can not com
plain where the jury found damages
in favor of the plaintiff Of less than |
80 cents per share.-Rogers " Rosen-
field (Wisconsin). 149 Northwestern.
33, p 49, October, 1914.
Sale of Mining stock--Liability for
Fraudulent Representations.
The owner of stock in mining cor
poration who, for the purpose of in
ducing another to purchase the stock.
stated to him that he had just return
ed from the mining property and that
there was ore enough on the dump at
the mine to run a mill from to s
years, that 1t was high grade ore and
that there was half million dollars
worth of ore on the dump ready to
nill was held liable on proof that the
were false, and such
representations, when relied upon, do
1ot constitute a mere expression of
opinion, but were statements of facts
IN which the purchaser had right |
o rely,-Rogers " Resented OWLS
'onsin). 149 Northwestern, SS, p. IS, :
october, 1914
sale Of Mining Stock--Fraud--Per
sonal Investigation by Purchaser.
In an action on a promissory note
tlven In payment OF the purchase j,
rice of mining stock the maker of =
he note can not defend on the ground
I fraud and false representation
rhere the evidence shows that the
purchaser of the stock, the maker OF a
he note, made the purchase on the .,
esult of his own investigation and W
OF in reliance on the statements made b.
the payee or in the company's pros y
ectus; and the statute of Connect al
ut imposing penalty for making h,
Use statements as to the value of e'
-ocks, bonds or property has no APP .,
llcation where the evidence shows j
nat the purchaser did not rely upon ps
nd was not misled or deceived by
lie statement of the seller.-Meech v. DC
alcolm (Connecticut) 90 Atlantic, nc
"a p. $50. December. 1914.
allure to Pay Corporation Tax-Lia. us
bility and Forfeiture of Franchise. ac
The statute of Colorado imposes an mi
lnual corporation tax on corpora
,ns of that state and provides that or
'n-payment of the taxes shall work -,
forfeiture of the corporate franchise
ID provides also that an action OF SUI
bt viii lie for the recovery of the sSs
x. In an action of debt by the state sp'
ainst a mining corporation for taxes spi
erdue the corporation can not de-
nd on the ground that its failure to sal
the taxes for the first year oper-
I'D as a forfeiture of its franchise Nj
lere 1t appears that the corporation
ntinued in business for the succeed
years and was still exercising Its oa,
ut anr still conducting its husInesS r