CARROLL v EATON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12864 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 WAYNE CARROLL, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RANDALL N. EATON e t a 1. , Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : R. Thomas G a r r i s o n a r g u e d , V i r g i n i a C i t y , Montana F o r Respondent : C h e s t e r L. J o n e s a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , V i r g i n i a C i t y , Montana September 11, 1975 Submitted: Decided; , Filed : y&. g*I - Clerk \+ " . ; = 8- 9 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n t h i s a p p e a l t h i s Court i s asked t o c o n s i d e r and review t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s concerning t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a mining l e a s e . Judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f Wayne C a r r o l l was e n t e r e d June 1 0 , 1974, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Madison County, and from t h a t judgment d e f e n d a n t s Randall Eaton, M. P. Middleton and John B o l i n g e r a p p e a l . The p r o p e r t i e s which a r e t h e s u b j e c t of t h e c o n t e s t e d l e a s e a r e known a s t h e '94ogul Claims", located i n t h e Gravelly Range Mining D i s t r i c t of Madison County. The b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s between t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h i s land d a t e back t o 1963. O n September 20, 1963, C a r r o l l , a s l e s s e e , executed a mining l e a s e w i t h Eaton i n d i v i d u a l l y , and a s a t t o r n e y i n f a c t f o r M.P. t o n , a c i t i z e n and r e s i d e n t of Canada. Middle- The l e a s e was t o extend f o r two y e a r s "and a s long t h e r e a f t e r a s o r e o r m i n e r a l s 9 : * s h a l l b e produced from s a i d premises i n commercial q u a n t i t i e s . 11 Upon t h e l e s s e e ' s f a i . l u r e t o produce o r e , t h e l e a s e was allowed t o terminate. A second l e a s e was d r a f t e d by C a r r o l l , and was executed by t h e same p a r t i e s on August 16, 1965. II I n t h i s document, t h e kabendum c l a u s e " , o r t h a t p a r t of t h e l e a s e which d e s c r i b e s i t s d u r a t i o n , was s e t o u t i n much g r e a t e r d e t a i l . The l e a s e a g a i n e s t a b l i s h e d a "primary term" of two y e a r s and a " t h e r e a f t e r term" which was dependent upon t h e production of o r e i n commercial q u a n t i t i e s f o r i t s length. D e f i n i t i o n a l and d e l a y r e n t a l p r o v i s i o n s were a l s o i n c l u d e d i n an a t t e m p t t o s p e c i f y t h e r i g h t s of t h e parties : "Commercial q u a n t i t i e s s h a l l b e and i s hereby d e f i n e d a s t h a t q u a n t i t y n e c e s s a r y t o produce t o f i r s t p a r t i e s a t l e a s t $500.00 p e r y e a r . And i n t h e event of no o p e r a t i o n s upon s a i d mining c l a i m s , t h e payment by second p a r t y t o f i r s t p a r t y of t h e sum of $500.00 p e r y e a r a s minimum d e l a y r e n t a l s h a l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o hold s a i d mining c l a i m under t h i s l e a s e and t o keep t h e same i n good s t a n d i n g . I I Pursuant t o l e a s e p r o v i s i o n s , t h e l e s s e e tendered payments of $500 t o t h e l e s s o r s i n 1966, and a g a i n i n 1967. A t h i r d payment of $500 i n d e l a y r e n t a l was tendered by t h e l e s s e e f o r t h e purpose of extending t h e l e a s e a n o t h e r y e a r . Lessors accepted t h e payment without any a t t e m p t t o d e c l a r e a f o r f e i t u r e o r t e r m i n a t e t h e l e a s e , t h e r e b y extending i t f o r a period of one y e a r . I n 1968, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a new l e a s e , w i t h p r o v i s i o n s i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e found i n t h e 1965 l e a s e . In l i e u of production, t h e l e s s e e tendered payments o f $500 f o r t h e y e a r s 1969 and 1970. A s he had done p r e v i o u s l y , t h e l e s s e e a g a i n t e n - dered a t h i r d d e l a y r e n t a l payment f o r t h e purpose of extending the lease another year. on August 16, 1971. The check was r e c e i v e d by t h e l e s s o r s Lessee heard n o t h i n g f u r t h e r u n t i l t h e check was r e t u r n e d t o him on A p r i l 17, 1972, more than e i g h t months a f t e r t h e check had been r e c e i v e d by t h e l e s s o r s . Lessor Eaton t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was employed o u t of s t a t e d u r i n g most of t h e time between August 1971 and A p r i l 1972. He a l s o s t a t e d he knew of t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e check, i n s t r u c t e d h i s w i f e t o r e t u r n i t , and t h a t h i s absence from t h e s t a t e r e s u l t e d i n h i s i n a b i l i t y t o ensure t h e check was r e t u r n e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time. I n September 1971, Eaton e n t e r e d i n t o a n o t h e r l e a s e ~ ~ i t h John E o l i n g e r . C a r r o l l continued t o t e n d e r d e l a y r e n t a l payments through t h e y e a r s 1972 and 1973 i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i s r i g h t s . Both checks were promptly r e t u r n e d by l e s s o r s . Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e p a r t i e s intended t h a t t h e l e a s e be extended, and t h e l e s s e e was e n t i t l e d t o , and i n fact d i d r e l y t o h i s detriment upon l e s s o r s ' r e t e n t i o n o f h i s check a s c o n f i r m a t i o n and v a l i d a t i o n of t h e l e a s e and i t s extension. O a p p e a l , i t i s contended t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e r r e d i n i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e l e a s e and i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l . W disagree. e T r a d i t i o n a l l y , mining l e a s e s iil Jloneana and elsewhere have Seen d r a f t e d i n two b a s i c and d i s t i n c t forms. Under t h e p r o v i s i o n s . ~ f "or" t y p e l e a s e , t h e l e s s e e i s o b l i g a t e d t o produce o r pay an delay r e n t a l s . The l e a s e can t e r m i n a t e o n l y by mutual consent of ]:he p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e primary term, f a i l u r e t o pay d e l a y r e n t a l s o r an ~ction by t h e l e s s o r t o d e c l a r e t h e l e a s e f o r f e i t e d . Hager-Stevenson O i l Co., McDaniel v. 75 Mont. 356, 365, 243 P. 582. When i t dppears t h a t t h e p a r t i e s have executed an "unless" t y p e l e a s e , t h e 1-essee h a s t h e o p t i o n t o produce, pay d e l a y r e n t a l s , o r do n e i t h e r , a l l without i n c u r r i n g o b l i g a t i o n . ~ e r m i n a t i o ni n f a v o r of t h e l e s s o r . But f a i l u r e t o a c t i s automatic Irwin v. Marvel Petroleum Corp., 139 Idont. 413, 365 P.2d 221. Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y found t h a t t h i s was an II o r " t y p e l e a s e i n which t h e l e s s e e was r e q u i r e d t o e i t h e r produce o r pay d e l a y r e n t a l s . A s noted from t h e c a s e s c i t e d , one r e l i a b l e me~hodof determining what t y p e of l e a s e i s i n t e n d e d i s t o look a t t h e n a t u r e of t h e o b l i g a t i o n s i n c u r r e d by t h e l e s s e e . Here, t h e l e a s e terms o b l i g a t e d t h e l e s s e e t o pay d e l a y r e n t a l s i n l i e u of production f o r t h e primary period of two y e a r s , i n o r d e r t o keep t h e l e a s e II i n good s t a n d i n g " . ]Tad t h e l e s s e e de- f a u l t e d i n t h e s e payments, t h e l e s s o r s would c e r t a i n l y have had t h e option due. t o i n s i s t upon f o r f e i t u r e o r waive i t and s u e f o r t h e r e n t a l s Thus t h e p a r t i e s c l e a r l y contemplated an "or" l e a s e , and a s such, i t was incumbent upon t h e l e s s o r s t o d e c l a r e a f o r f e i t u r e a t t h e c l o s e of t h e primary term, i f t h a t was d e s i r e d . I t i s a p p a r e n t from t h e r e c o r d t h a t no such a c t i o n was taken by t h e l e s s o r s . The o n l y r e s p o n s e t o t h e l e s s e e ' s t e n d e r of d e l a y r e n t a l s was t o hold t h e same f o r a p e r i o d of time i n e x c e s s of e i g h t months. T h e r e f o r e , t h e n e t r e s u l t of the l e s s e e ' s t e n d e r of payment was a v a l i d andkinding e x t e n s i o n o f t h e l e a s e . Having r e s o l v e d t h i s q u e s t i o n on t h e l a w , t h e r e i s n o need t o d i s c u s s t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l o r i t s applicability to the facts. Judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . 'Justice V e Concur: Justices. E
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
