Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1883-02-21


"That Turnbull was acting for and in
behalf Of Minor in the transaction. u
If there representations were mater
ial TO the transaction between the par.
ties and were relied upon by the State
officers in parting with the notes, to
their injury, and were false in fact,
then | have no doubt the State may
receive the transfer at least as against
Turnbull, whether the same shall be
called a transfer of the notes on a
settlement of the trespass suit.
Now the only ground upon which
these representations can be held to be
material to the bargain then made in
their effect upon the possibility of the
State being able to collect of Minor
the amount which the Supreme Court
should decree to be paid. In other
words, whether any..sum could be fore
ed from Minor Gf he was not willing
to pay, by a resort to the process of
the court.
These officers knew that they could
obtain a decree for just what the State
was entitled to for its timber, whether
Minor was in the State or out, or
whether he would consent to pay or
not. Again they must have known
that unless Mr.. Turnbull was repre-
senting Mr.. McElroy in some manner,
that no agreement of Minor alone
would prevent him (McElroy) from
prosecuting his suit then pending to
a decree which might be more or less
favorable to him than the compromise
which Minor proposed to make.
1t is not claimed that the state
ments that Mr. Turnbull made as to
the amount of trespass committed
were untrue, but that by the repre-
sensations in question he induced them
to believe that Minor was not situat-
ed so that a collection could be forced
from him, and thus induced them to
settle for less sum than they sup
posed the State to be entitled.
The State officers had learned before
this from their attorneys at Alpena,
Merss. X. and c., that Mr.. Minor was
a man of large property, was per-
fectly responsible and the notes col
lectible. They had also learned be-
fore the interview with Mr.. Il. that
Minor had deposited $4,000 to
meet these notes in the bank of AL
pena. They had also learned from
some source that Minor was about to
make trip abroad.
Now with this previous knowledge
as to the financial standing of John S.
Minor, and believing from it as they
must and did that up to that time, any
thing equitably owing upon the notes
as representing the trespass could be
collected of him, we would naturally
expect when these statements were
made by Mr.. Turnbull, if these officers
deemed them material and potential
in the step they were about to take
if they were the prime causes which
operated upon their minds to induce
them to make the transfer-that they
should have been referred to-spoken
of in the interview which resulted in
the delivery of the notes to Turnbull.
That they would have questioned
him as to Minors property-his re-
sponsibility-the length of his sojourn
abroad about the deposit of $1,000
which they had learned had been
made at the bank in Alpena.
1t seems hardly credible that these
high officers of our State having notes
in their hands to the amount of over
s2,500.00 against man whom, from
their own trusted attorneys they had
always understood was perfectly re-
sponsible and whom they had heard
had already deposited the face of the
notes to meet them when presented,
should, from the mere indirect state
ments of the attorneys of the other
side in conversation seeking the set
Element of the case, (to believe their
own account of IT'D OH quite another
ground, namely, chat there was not
such an amount equitably due" "that
Minor had gone to another State and
would only pay s1,1OO.OO," without
one word of further inquiry from T.
or anyone else, surrender the property
of the State to the amount Of 81 800.
These statements must have been
a great surprise to them. Why did
they not ask Turnbull about Minors
or his standing. financially,
or the deposit of which they had
heard.
l think they were induced to take
the step they did because they thought
that if the McElroy suit was pressed
TO a hearing upon the appeal, that the
Supreme Court would not give the
State more than $4,000. And 1
think further that their own account
Of the interview shows this conclusive
".
If this be so, then these statements