St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-01
STILL At 1T.
Judge shaw Talking i'm the King.
Remington Suit.

! Shaw resumed the reading of his brief in
| the King-Remington suit He spoke rap
idly and made few pauses or digressions.
As a result he covered good deal of
ground and may be able TO conclude his ar
| gument this morning.
Judge Shaw first took the theory of the
! plaintiff, that Remington became a trustee
by entering into possession of the property,
thereby establishing a relation which would
| prevent him from becoming the purchaser
( of the equity of redemption. Upon this
! point he quoted number of authorities TO
! show that the law does not hold that
mortgage conveys, but only a security.
a mortgage is often called a trustee. and
in limited sense this character might be
attributed to him, for there might be duty
| resting upon mortgage to discharge
particular claim against the property mort
gagged. A mortgage is bound to account
for rents, taxes and profits, and in this re-
spect might be called a trustee, but except
III some special sense that was not the rela-
ton he bore to the mortgagOr. a mort
gage who is in possession is also
sometimes spoken of as a tenant,
and while the analogy between the two re-
latiOnS is not close, il is difficult TO see any
reason for denying the right of a mortgage
to purchase and hold adversely 10 the mort
gagOr in cases where the tenant would be
allowed 10 purchase and hold against the
| landlord.
Another ground upon which the plaintiffs
claim that Remington became so situated
that he could not take under the bankruptcy
sale title adverse TO King is the agreement
alleged in their replies between King and
Remington and InneS in connection. Judge
Shaw here read
THE AGREEMENT,
which is denied by the defendants. The
facts alleged with respect TO the agreement
are about as follows: First, that there was
TO be a sale by the two aSsignees; second,
that King desired TO have the title of the
assignee procured for him, to the end that
| the relations between him king and Rem
mgtOn might continue without any embar-
rasSment from any claim or title by a third
| party; third, that King intended TO buy in
the assignee's title for himself, and TO
have kgit hidden for him in trnst;
fourth, that friends were ready with funds
to buy in the property; fifth, that King de-
clared to Remington and Innes such inten-
ton; sixth, that it was expressly agreed
between Remington and King that the
latter should not bid at such sale, but that
Remington should have the lands hidden
| OFF in his name for the purpose of continu-
ing the trust and relations Heretofore ex-
/ listing; seventh, that in pursuance of the
/ agreement King RETAINED from bidding and
! the lands were hidden off in RemingtOn's
name for SIS; that by reason thereof Rem
ington was enabled to get the title of the
assignee at greatly less price than he
otherwise could have obtained il. The proof
of the agreement which has been offered is
entirely verbal. The detailed conversations
are received subject to an objection that
the same are incompetent. and that
under our statute of frauds such a
contract cannot be established by
parol or verbal testimony, and under
the statutes of uses and trusts is void, as
being a trust not permitted. This is the
position of the defendants. We earnestly
contend that the agreement cannot be so
established. The statutes of frauds ex-
pressly prescribe that only an agreement
in writing, signed by the parties, will SUI
| fee. Again, this agreement must be looked
| at in the same way as if any one else, other
than King, who had never seen or known
Remington, was setting up claim TO re-
deem this property by it.
The Judge then went on at some length
to show that the agreement came within
the statutes of frauds, combating the the
DRY that the transaction between King and
| Remington respecting the bankruptcy sale
constitutes mortgage and can therefore
be shown by parol evidence. He also
claimed that the agreement was void under
! the statutes of uses and trusts. Upon
these points an elaborate argument was
made, and numerous decisions and rulings:
cited one feature TO which the attention of the
court was particularly called was that King
alleges that he, Remington and lines Cde-
liberately agree TO suppress bidding at the
bankruptcy sale, TO the end that King might
get the lands to make money out of, and
that the result was that the property was
bid in for SOS. If this is true it was
DELIBERATELY CONCEIVED FRAUD
upon the assignee, the court of bankruptcy
and the general creditors of King. Yet
King has the effrontery. after having de-
liberately concOcted and carried out the
scheme, TO ask court of equity to decree
to him the anticipated fruits of it.
Mr.. King, with characteristic abandon
and sang froid, says that no one was TO de-
rive any benefit from the agreement, which
is set up as a reason why Remington should
not have the benefit of this purchase from
the assignee, which, but for the agreement.
he would have had. 1t was not for Rem
ington's interest with about $500, 600
of his own money invested and
King in bankruptcy with a personal dis
charge from his Indebtedness, TO continue
to hold this property as a mortgage or
trustee, with 500, 600 to $50, 900 OF prior
liens upon it. Yet King says that in order
that he might speculate" Remington and
LINES Thought it best to do this" and
then they deliberately used the machinery
of the bankrupt court TO defeat the object
of the bankrupt law.
1t would seem that Mr.. King had, and
| yet has, an idea that Mr.. Remington was
h,.,,r Into
moved and had his being. and was bound to
devote and continue indefinitely TO devote
his whole fortune with an utter abnegatiOn
| of his own interests for the express and
only purpose of serving and promoting the
welfare and glorihcation of William S.
| King.
1t is Characteristic of some people to con-
template the earth and the fullneSS thereof
as belonging to them by sort of divine
right, and TO aver that they are wrong
fully and fraudulently dealt with
IL anybody presumes TO question their as
sumptions. 1t appears likewise that the
plaintiff and his learned counsel have an
idea that the bankrupt law was a cunningly
devised pretense and codification of a sys-
tenn of legallzed fraud. sort of a judibial
mill where spendthrifts after borrowing and
wasting the substance of credulous and con-
fiding creditors, might put themselves and
what they aver to be the valuable remain
ders and equities of their incumbered es-
tates into the hopper at front and be turned
out at the spout at the rear and with clear
discharge and redemption from pursuit by
their victims, and all the estate which they
had pretended to surrender still in their
hands. They should remember the maxim.
eXturpi causa non Oritur actio, or as the
same idea is sometimes expressed. ''He who
asks relief from a court of equity must