St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-08

all this? Mr.. Wilson went to Ilion with
an order from this court and putting Philo
Remington on the stand pumped out of
him that there was this secret contract.
There is no doubt that on this trip to New
Mexico lines managed to instill into the
mind of Mrs. Remington that she could get
the sum she had always desired out OF Col.
and Mrs King. All she had to do was to
manage Philo, and lines in turn swindled
her. Judge Shaw spoke of Col. King as
wanting the earth" This is the first time
Col. King has been accused of avarice,
above all things. He only wants the small
portion of the earth which belongs to him
and his wife. If Remington wished to re-
ward Innes he could do it, but he must not
use the property of Col. and Mrs. King to
do it with. He is like Artemus Ward, who
was willing that all his wife's relations
should go to the war.
Mr.. Van Voorhis here stated the techni-
cal objections of the defense in detail and
commented thereon, following with state
ment of facts in chronological order out Of
which the plaintiffs claims for relief arise;
beginning with the conveyances of 1875 to
Remington, stating how the omitted lands
came to be omitted and how they were
taken in; how lines was brought into the
business and how the quitclaim deeds
were procured from Mrs. King; the agree
ment under which the bankruptcy sale was
made and the vain efforts of Col. King to
obtain any knowledge of Remington's do
ings. He then went on to present his legal
argument based upon the facts stated.
FlrSt-RemingtOn is a trustee and his
purchase at the bankrupt sale of lands in
controversy and the conveyance to him of
the omitted lands were in his character
as trustee, and he must account for them as
such and is governed by all the rules which
govern trustees.
The relation created between, Col. King
and PhilO Remington on the 18th of June,
1875, is that of trustees and cestui que trust.
1t is not material whetherit is called trust
or power in trust The result is the same.
Remington accepted the trust and cannot
diveSt himself of its obligations, except by
an accounting and turning over to Col.
King and wife all he has received over and
above his advances and interest and eX-
penSeS.
1t is well enough to begin with, to see
how the parties understood the transaction.
The evidence clearly shows that Col. King
understood it to be trust. Remington was
his lifelong and most trusted friend. King
was in financial embarrassment, and Rem
ingtOn was man who could command large
means. There is no pretense that Reming-
ton, in the first instance, bought the property
absolutely. He took some other title than
an absolute title. His relation to King was
that of the StricteSt confidence. Reming-
toms memory is very defective as to the
original transaction, but he cOntradictS
nothing that King testifies to, as to that
transaction.
The amount of money he furnished was
large, but every dollar of it went into the
land, and therefore right back to Reming-
ton. Col. King teStifies, and he is not dis
puted, that he
APPLIED EVERY DOLLAR
of Remington's advances faithfully to the
payment of the claims against the land,
conveyed and intended to be conveyed.
The particulars of these payments will ap-
pear elsewhere.
King increased the value of the lands
conveyed to Remington by using all of
RemingtOn's advances to pay OFF liens, and
by putting his own services and several
thousands of dollars of his own money into
it. 1t was singular course for him to
take, if he had intended to convey away the
property absolutely.
How did Remington understand the con-
tract? He understood it just as Col. King
did, that it made him a trustee. He never
supposed he had a mere mortgage.
Mr.. Van VOorhis next dissected the con-
tract between King and Remington, and
quoted literally from the statute of trusts,
also citing many leading authorities. At 5
O'clock adjournment was taken. The
counsel will probably occupy the entire day,
and will be followed by Mr.. Bryant, also
for the plaintiffs.