Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-07-29
THE MOOTED QUESTION:
What Shall be Done With the Legacy
Handed Down to Us by the Republican
RepaldiatOrs.

hSpNUtUCOT0s
10 the Editor of the Globe.
Whilst there is being so much said and
published about what constitutes repu-
liation and who are regulators, in re-
yard to the minnesota State railroad
,onds," it may be well to recur to the
doctrine of the court in the ancient and
eading case of
JOHN DOE VERSUS RICHARD ROE.
I have mislaid my memorandum, but
as recollect it, the case was as follows;
Doe, the plaintiff, was the owner OF a
large estate, the management of which
he entrusted to agents and servants ap-
pointed by him from time to time by In
strument in the nature OF power OF at
torney. For some reason, dot now re-
though Doe could sue, he could
not be sued upon his obligations, the
payment of them rested in his cOnscl-
ence and upon his personal honor. In
course of time large number OF obliga-
tions, or what were assumed to be such,
were put out by his agents in his name.
Upon examination Doe became suspicious
that all was not right, that these obliga-
lions, or at least part Of them, were tainted
by fraud, and that he was neither legally,
equitably, or morally bound to pay all OF
them in full, that some of them,
how many he was not then able to
decide, ought to be paid IN
full, Others in part only, and Others not
at all.
In this state of doubt, he changed the
powers of attorney under which his
agents acted, by inserting provision In
them that no payment or settlement OF
that class of claims against him should
be made without being first submitted to,
and approved by him. And he went so
far as to require all his said agents and
ATTORNEYS to take and subscribe an oath
that they, and each of them would faith
fully support and observe all the provis-
ions and limitations of said powers of
attorney.
After Doe had made this new rule, and
inserted the above limitatsons and re-
striction upon the authority of his agents,
in the instruments by which they were
appointed, and under which they were
to act and be governed by in their man
agement of his affairs, and disposal of his
property; one Richard Roe applied to him
to be appointed as one of his agents and
attorneys, and upon his taking and sub
scriblng said oath to support and observe
all the said provisions and limitations IN
the power of attorney under which he was
appointed, Doe received him into his SER
vice as his agent
After this the holders of said disputed
claims, got around Roe, with crowd
who called themselves Cuisines men"
and who ssmeant business and they bull
dozed him until they got him to settle these
claims by conveyance of part of Does
property, without saying a word to Doe
about it. Doe got mad and went to law
thing by the way in which Doe had con-
siderable experience.
Upen the argument before the
court, counsel for the claimants
argued. that the said restric-
ton in the instrument under which Roe
was appointed, and by which he derived
all the authority which he had to act in
the premises, and his oath to obey the
same. were null and void; because, they
said, Doe had no legal right to impose
such limitation upon the authority OF
those he appointed to manage his affairs.
That these claims were valid contracts,
and that inasmuch as Doe, if he were
liable to suit, would be compelled to pay
them, therefore, his agents might lawfully
settle them by conveyance of such por-
ton of his lands as they might choose to
make, without consulting Doe and with
out authority from him-nay, ia direct
opposition to the express prohibition OF
the instrument by which they held their
appointment, and which constituted Mei7'
sole and only authority to act at all in
the premises. And they made vocifer
Gus cry of reputation, and rung all pos
sible changes on the word, and sung it to
all known tunes.
But the court thought differently, and
held: that the only question there, was
simply ana only the subsercae1ace Of the
delegate to the terms and limitations Of
delegated authority and the oaltdity Of his
acts IN excess of such authority. That III
that stage of the controversy the court
had nothing to do with the right, or
wrong, of the principals neglect to pay
said claims, for in any view they might
take of that question, his neglect to pay
them, did not of itself, amount to power
in his agents to make conveyance of his
lands in such payment, especially
where, as in that case, the
power and trust was especially
restricted to submitting any proposed
settlement thereof, to the principal, for
his approval or rejection-which the
learned. judge took occasion to remark,
was in this case made more solemn by the
oath to observe it; that Roe had no bust
ness to have accepted the appointment
and trust, If he believed any of the con-
ditions and limitations by which it was
encountered were wicked or unfit for
him to obey, nor to hold on to the p
pointment after he came to such conclu-
sion. The right and remedy for him was
resignation of the trust; and said acts and
conveyanccs of land made by Roe, were
declared to be null and void, and were set
aside.
AS to the charge of ''repudiation, the
court decided that the boot belonged on
the other leg; that said Richard Roe was
a repudiator, because he repudiated the
limitations of his delegated trust, as he
also repudiated his solemn oath to observe
and obey them.
After that Roe was called repubiator,
and the aoiser class of business men would
not trust him with authority to manage
their affairs or dispose of their property
The application of the principles of law
laid down by the court in the decision of
the above case, to the act of the last leg
islature, in regard to the Minnesota State
railroad bonds, is obvious to all of us who
hold that members of the legislature are
frr,Stooc of 6alomotod noWor-tha