St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-04-29


lots in Bradford & Lewis addition in 1882
$500 per front foot; the Mendenhall ten in
the same year was worth between $50. 900
and s7O, 900, and at present worth about
$50, 600.
Charles Nee. Reeve considered the Lyn-
dale farm in 1878 worth $500 per acre, and
the adjoining 200 acres $500 each.
THE EXPERTS OPINION.
All the experts said that at forced sale
the lands would not, at the time specified,
have brought more than IS per cent. of
their real value. They agreed substantially
that the value of Col. Kings land at the
time of the bankrupt sale in 1873 was from
about $1,000; that in 1882 when
it is alleged that Innes and
Menage bought the land for $500, 900; it
was worth at least double that amount.
The plaintiffs also claim that at this time,
1882, Remington had been fully paid, and
had no right to any of the King property.
Consequently he must be held accountable
fer the present value of this land, which is
put at 81, 500, 900.
THE PLAINTIFF RESTS.
This closed the testimony for the plain
tiff, and Mr.. Wilson here offered in evil
and Innes, between Innes and Mrs. Reming-
ton, and between lines and Menage;
also the assignment Judgment TO ReIning-
ton in the action brought by the Lake City
bank against King and Morrison; the mem-
oranda of all sales made by Remington
since 1875 were also offered. Among the
lists are great number OF conyeyanceS,
the consideration Of which up TO 1882
amounted to $500, 900, and since then to
81, 900, coo. Mr.. Wilson stated further that
he did not offer the lists as a substitute for
an accounting but as a basis for an account
ing by showing that at certain point sale
had been made sufficient to fully repay
Remlngton'S advances, and that he must
consequently account for sales made since
that time. The plaintiff here rested and
adjournment was taken for dinner.
THE DEFENSE OPENS.
At 2 o'clock in the afternoon court again
convened, when A. L. Levi, the attorney to
whom was delegated the task of opening
the dase for the defendants, arose and adj
dressed the court, saying that he should be
very brief III his remarks. That he so ell
deavOred was apparent, but he spoke two
hours and half and when he concluded so
little of the afternoon remained that adj
jOurnnent was taken. There was little III
Mr.. Lewis address to the court which is OF
interest to the public, as he confined him.
self largely to discussion of propositions
of law applicable to the facts as he expects
to have them established. In this he ele-
waited himself quite above the plane OF
ordinary comprehension. His main idea
was that the agreement between King
and Remington was i'll effect a mort
gage, and not deed of trust.
imposing higher obligations and privileges
than the prosecution claimed, and that the
Kings had forfeited all title to the lands
concerning which the suit is brought. In
his commencement he said the history of
Philo Remington was history of this part
of the country. His unbounded generosity
and undoubted integrity is irreconcilaDle
with the theory Of his course as advanced
by the prosecution, and if it shall be shown
that no wrong has been done by him it will
be difficult to show wherein the other de-
PENDANTS have done wrong. lines and
Menage are Well-known citizens, and it is
sufficient to say Of them that their charac-
tiers will compare favorably with that Of
William S. King, the real plaintiff in the
case. Col King is man against whom
no one desires 10 speak evil, but is man
whose disposition and methods are well
known in this community. a man with
vast and unbOunded imagination, with I'M
doubted ability, he became bankrupt when
at the very highest of his prosperity through
these very infirmities of this disposition.
In 1874 Col. King found himself indebted
to the amount of several hundred thousand
dollars, with bankruptcy staring him in the
face. 1t is impossible to escape from the
conclusion that he then transferred to his
ia q n 10
idea Of protecting himself from impending
ruin. This was the inception of the pres
ent case. In 1875 he was still further EN-
barrassed and went TO Philo Remington, his
old friend, for help, telling him he owed
from $3.50, 600 to S175, 900. He finds that
friend himself embarrassed with the burden
OF a vast business, but persuadeS him to aid
him, by assuming that he would be able to
repay him within q year. He succeeded
then in getting $50, 600, and his visit cullni-
mated in his inducing Remington TO agree
to advance S240, 600 and assume response
bilities further to the amount of SIT, 600,
$50. 900 of which is in specific liens upon
the lands conveyed to Mrs. King III 1874.
Mr.. Levi here took up the agreement,
and spent considerable time i'll diSsecting it
clause by clause. and in bearing out his
assumption that it was mortgage, made
numerous references TO different authOri-
ties, followed by long argument to show
that as the doctrine of SubrogatiOn is in
tended to prevent Il wrong, it should be in
vOked to protect Mr.. Remington. the con-
iiding creditor. rather than Mrs. King. If
she was surety for her husbands debts.
she should have gone into court at the time
of the bankruptcy and proved her claim
In falling To do this she waived her right of
subrogation, and Phio Remington. who was
In possession Of the equitable rights of
mortgage. when he bought the legal title at
the bankruptcy sale, became vested in en-
tire right to the property. At this time the
relations of King and Remington as debtor
and creditor closed, and the former lost all
interest In the title.
The attorney then passed on to the sign
ing of the deed to the Bradford & Lewis
lots, and secuted the idea that Mr.. and Mrs.
King did not know at the time that the
deed contained anything but the description
OF these lots.
He referred also to sudden change of
nomen and a substitution of line of proof
to show that the agreement was deed Of
trust instead of mortgage; also to the
suspicious fact that 4 man of Col. Kings
disposition should have waited so long and
expended at least two years in accommodating
the evidence for these actions. 1t stands to
reason that he must have learned by 1882.
from the sales of property at
that time that the defendants had
regarded him as having sacrificed all title
and interest The omitted lands, the Lake
City and Johnson judgments, the tripartite
agreement and the Tuckernan transactions
all came in for attention. Mr.. Levi wound
up by claiming that although land has been
snld 70 the alnnnl,t of Srsn 900 NJ, rrn, N,