| Summary: | BEYER v. INVESTORS' SYNDICATE 257 decided by the United States District Court for North Dakota in 1909. Before the decision in the United States court aforesaid, fore closure proceedings had been begun upon the Dana mortgage. Beyer, intervening therein, positively denied that he was a stockholder in either of the coal companies, claiming that he had rescinded his trans action by which he had obtained his stock, and claimed to be the owner of the mortgage. That litigation was finally decided in 1912. Eight een days after the final disposition of the said case the present action was begun, based, in part at least, upon quitclaim deeds given by the administrator of the Letts estate to Beyer, which deeds are dated March 23, 1911, and February 15, 1912. Appellant further points out that all of the payments made for taxes were made pending liti gation wherein Beyer was attempting to take away from the coal company the lands in question; and they insist that this fact is incon sistent with his present contention, that the payments were made in good faith, to preserve the assets of the company. This is a matter calling for the exercise of the broadest equitable principles. So far as the Investors' Syndicate is concerned, we have, in the foreclosure case just decided by this court, held them a party to an attempt to loot the coal company of its assets. Beyer, while speculating in his orig inal investment, has, nevertheless, been free from any fraud in his transactions. Admitting all that appellants say about him, he i^ honesty personified, in comparison with Williams and his associates. Considering his provocation, we do not consider the actions to rescind evidence of bad faith upon his part; and we therefore conclude, that equity and good conscience require that the coal companies pay to him the taxes paid by him upon the property at a time when he believed himself to be the owner thereof. All such sums, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of payments, are hereby declared to be a lien upon the premises, to be enforced according to law by execution sale, if necessary. (4) Appellants, in anticipation of this situation, claim that the proof is insufficient to show that Beyer paid such taxes. They concede that he has receipts signed by the treasurer of the county for such sums; but claim that the treasurer's receipt is not sufficient, but, in addition, there should have been proof of assessment and levy of the taxes themselves; and we are cited to Swenson v. Greenland, 4 N. D. 31 N. D.—17.
|
|---|