Case Name: ANDERSON v. ROBINSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-06-28
Citations: 57 Or. 172
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDERSON v. ROBINSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 172–185

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss, submitted April 26,
decided June 28.
On the merits, argued July 27, decided September 20, 1910.
ANDERSON v. ROBINSON.
[109 Pac. 1118; 110 Pac. 975.]
Trusts — Agreements—Duty of Trustee.
1. Where a mortgagee of an unpatented mining claim, who contracted with a judgment creditor of the mortgagor to foreclose the mortgage and acquire the claim, and hold the title in trust to protect the parties under their hens, and to do at his own expense the necessary assessment work to' maintain his title, purchased the claim at a foreclosure sale, and executed an instrument reciting 'that, as trustee for himself and the judgment creditor, he purchased the claim, the mortgagee was vested with the legal title in trust, and he could not abandon the performance of his duty as trustee without rendering himself liable to the judgment creditor.
Trusts — Sales by Trustee — Validity.
2. A trustee may convey his interest which he may have individually in the subject-matter of the trust.
Trusts — Duty of Trustee — Abandonment of Trust.
3. A trustee may not abandon the trust and substitute another in his place as trustee without the consent of “the beneficiary, but he must proceed in the execution of the trust, and cannot terminate it by his act or default.
Trusts — Trustees—Appointment by Court.
4. On the refusal of a trustee to act, equity will either compel him to act, or will appoint another trustee in his place.
Trusts — Agreement Creating Trust — Rights of Parties.
5. Where a mortgagee of an unpatented mining claim, who contracted with a judgment creditor of the mortgagor to foreclose the mortgage and acquire the title of the claim in trust to preserve the rights of the parties under their liens, and to do the assessment work necessary to preserve his title, and who agreed to sell the claim jointly with the adjacent claim of the judgment creditor at any time within three years, and, in case no sale was made within that time, the lien of the judgment creditor should not be affected by the mortgage sale, but he should receive out of the claim the amount due him subordinate to the mortgage, purchased the claim and then failed to do the assessment work, the judgment creditor could himself do the assessment work if not prevented by the mortgagee, or one claiming under him, and tack the expense on to his lien, and, if prevented, he could apply to equity for a substituted trustee for that purpose, but his right to enforce his lien created by the contract was dependent on the event that no sale of the claims was made within three years.
Trusts — Agreement Creating Trust — Rights of Parties.
6. Where a mortgagee of an unpatented mining claim who contracted with judgment creditors of the mortgagor to purchase the claim at a mortgage foreclosure and hold it in trust for the parties under their liens, and to do the assessment work necessary to preserve the title, purchased the claim at a mortgage foreclosure, and then employed one of the judgment creditors to supervise the assessment work and repairs, at a monthly salary to be paid by the mortgagee, the claim of the judgment creditor for salary and for damages sustained while in the performance of his duties was personal against the mortgagee, and recoverable only in an action at law.
From Josephine: Hiero K. Hanna, Judge.
This is a suit by T. K. Anderson, individually and as administrator of the estate of H. A. Williamson, deceased, and Albert Phillip, against Emma G. Robinson and Grant Phegley, to foreclose an alleged equitable mortgage on certain mining claims formerly owned by the Galice Consolidated Mines Company, a corporation. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, the defendant, Emma G. Robinson, appeals. The respondents now move to dismiss the appeal.
Denied.
Messrs. Colvig & Durham for the motion.
Mr. H. D. Norton and Messrs. Gam-mans & Malarkey, contra.

Opinion:
Decided June 28, 1910.
On Motion to Dismiss.
[109 Pac. 1118.]
Opinion
Per Curiam.
This suit was begun to foreclose an equitable mortgage founded on certain agreements respecting mining claims, and the defendants appealed from an adverse decree. The plaintiff's counsel have moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the contract in question expired by limitation March 16, 1910, thereby leaving for consideration no question but that of costs and disbursements, and relegating the parties to their respective actions at law for a redress of their grievances. We conclude that the motion should be denied for the present, with leave to renew it at the trial of this cause on the merits; and it is so ordered. Motion Denied.
Statement by Mr. Justice Slater.
This suit was brought to foreclose an alleged equitable mortgage arising out of a contract executed on March 16, 1907, by T. K. Anderson, H. A. Williamson, and Albert Phillip on the one part, and Grant Phegley on the other part, and is against the latter and his assignee, Emma G. Robinson. The lien created thereby was upon a group of placer mining claims previously owned by the Galice Consolidated Mines Company, a corporation. Anderson sues in his own right and as the personal representative of Williamson, who died since the execution of the contract on which this suit is based. Phillip also is a party plaintiff. The principal facts giving origin to the agreement are that the parties first mentioned therein owned a placer claim adjoining similar property possessed and operated by the said corporation, and had obtained two judgments against the corporation for $2,500 and $2,600, respectively, which judgments had become a lien upon the mining claims in question. Defendant Phegley had a mortgage thereon, amounting to $2,000 and interest, which was prior to the plaintiffs' judgments, and he also owned a second mortgage lien which was subsequent and inferior thereto. The parties to the contract were desirous of acquiring the title to the mortgaged premises either by sale under execution on the judgments, or by foreclosure of Phegley's mortgages, and then make a consolidation of the encumbered property with plaintiffs' property and the water rights appurtenant to both, for the purpose of effecting a joint sale thereof; hence the contract mentioned was entered into on the date named. So far as material tó the case, it provides that, under certain contingencies, the plaintiffs should cause execution to issue on their judgments and the property of the corporation sold, and it was agreed that the plaintiffs, or some one in their behalf, should bid in the property, and, if necessary, should bid the amount due upon Phegley's two mortgages with like effect, as if plaintiffs were the owners thereof, and that Phegley should then receipt to the sheriff for the amounts due on said mortgages, which receipt should stand in lieu of actual cash payment, but, in case execution were not issued on plaintiffs' judgments, then Phegley was to foreclose his mortgages and cause a sale of the property thereunder, to the end that he should acquire title for the purposes of the pooling agreement, in which case the latter was to bid in the property for the full amount due upon the mortgages and the judgments as if he were the owner of both. In that event, the plaintiffs were to receipt to the sheriff in full for the amount due on their judgments, which would stand in lieu of the payment of cash to the sheriff. It was further agreed that whoever should bid in the property should hold the title in trust, so as to preserve the respective rights of the parties under their liens, with due regard to the existing priorities.