St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-09
Van Voorhis Ends His Plea, Devoting
Himself Mainly to the Law
Points Involved.
Bryant Eloquently and PatheticalIy
Closes the Argument or
the Plaintiff
By hopping the Court-Room Floor
With What Remains or Innes
and Menage.
The Great Suit.

experienced by all concerned when Mr.. Bry-
ant spoke the concluding words of his ar
gument, which signified that the end had
come at last. At $50 o'clock in the morn
ing, Mr.. Van VOrhis, for the plaintiffs re-
sumed his consideration of the relation of
trustee and ceStui que trust claiming that
Remington occupied a fiduciary relation.
He also considered the position of Reming-
ton as trustee. After citing numerous de-
cisions, counsel summed up the conditions
which make it the duty of the court to de-
clare Remington trustee in order to COM
pei restitution as follows:
FirSt-There is the agreement made by
Remington with Col. King, to bid in this
property at the sale of Kings assignee in
bankruptcy, for Col. Kings benefit,
To HOLD FOE KING,
just as he held the lands before. In this
view it is not material whether Remington
was trustee or a simple MORTGAGE He
was mortgage and also trustee. If either
or both he must account, and the plaintiffs
are entitled to redeem.
| SecOnd-There is the deliberate but con-
cealed intention of Remington to violate
this agreement and to cut of Col. King en-
tirely-the agreement being used as fraud
ulent means to accomplish the purpose.
1t does not help Remington to say that
hines is alone guilty of the trickery. Rem
ingtOn has the avails of the fraud, and is
as guilty as his agent.
Third-There is the inadequacy of con-
sideratiOn. A property worth at least
| $3.50, 600 over and above membranes. is
sold for SIS.
Fourth-There is the arrangement to bid
S25 in Kings interest, and the neglect of
King and his friends to attend the sale, and
TO get others to bid in his interest.
Fhth-There is the statement to the
officer who made the sale, TO induce him to
sell at this infnitesSimal sum. that the bid
was in the interest of all concerned. A
conscientious officer might we'll be surprised.
as Capt. Whitney was, at such a bid as this.
And upon stating his objection to entertain
ing such bid, his mind might easily be
satisfied by the statement from a response
bic quarter, that this bid was in the interest
of all who were concerned in the matter
the interest of King, of Remington, and of
the creditors.
Sixth-There was the failure of bid
ders 10 attend the sale. The arrangement
was known, beyond doubt.
NO ONE CARED TO BID,
in the circumstances, against the interest of
Col. King. Only three men attended the
sale: lines, the agent of Remington, Capt.
Whitney, Kings assignee, and Mr.. Nor
rison, the mutual attorney OF King, Rem
| ingt0n and the assignee, who went to see
that the agreed arrangement was carried
out, and who swears that il was carried
out.
Col. King has performed on his part. lie
promised Remington to stand by him and
see him through. He did so. 1t was his
vigOr, efforts and services which secured
the construction of the motor road, so ben
eticial TO these lands. He had no motive
10 render the services performed by him in
the interest of that road, except that he ex-
pected TO be benefited by the aid it would
give TO bring these lands into market he
got donations of land for this road. He Sc
cured for it the right 10 use city street for
its track, an acquisition Tor which Innes
had labored in vain. 1t appears that this
concession was granted with great reluct-
anee by the horse car company and only
granted
BECAUSE OF PROMISE
to Col. King when he parted with his stock
that such concession should be made
for his benefit. He used that, which
was valuable piece of property, for the
benefit of these lands, by insisting that it
should be considered, and probably in no
quired the right OF way in any street in the
city. He spent considerable money as well
as time in the same cause.
Even If Philo Remington, therefore, were
mortgage, pure and simple; even if he
were not IN any sense trustee; if he had
never been clothed with any power in trust,
his purchase at the bankruptcy sale of Col.
Kings lands. under the circumstances of the
case, was as trustee for Col. King, and be-
fore he can set up the invalidity of the con-
tract he must make restitution of all that he
acquired by that preconceived and barbar-
Gus fraud.
AS TO MENACE,
he is not bona fide purchaser of any of
the lands in the controversy and is entitled
to no protection. He took portion of the
lands Of Col. King which were conveyed TO
him, impressed with the trust. The rea-
sons in support of this proposition are con-
elusive and abundant:
First-This defense is not sufficiently
pleading. 1t is an affirmative defense, and
the onus Of pleading and proving it is upon
the party who relies upon it. The answer
being insufficient to allege this defense, it
entirely fails.
Second-He had constructive notice of
the trust by the references to the defeaSance
in the deeds.
Third-He had actual notice, as Joint
grantee and cO-partner with InneS, and is
chargeable with the knowledge which In
mes had.
FOurth-He bought the lands for grossly
inadequate consideratiOn-leSs than half
their value.
Fifth-He has not paid the consideration,
but has only secured its payment, and he
derived the money with which he made
Crnal1 al
from the lands themselves He put in no
money of his own.
Sixth-The sale to Menage is surrounded
with circumstances of suspicion.
THESE CONSIDERATIONS
were separately discussed, and authorities
cited in support of the construction of the
law made.
Caroline NJ. King is simply surety for
her husband. Remington had actual no
tice that she was the owner of the lands,
because Col. King so teStifieS, and Judge
Prescott so teStifes. and Mr.. Remington
does not deny. he also had notice by the
record title of Mrs. King. 1t is conceded
that Mrs. Kings grantors had the legal title
TO these lands. This is equivalent to con-
ceding that she had the legal title. That
she had such title is fact not to be
doubted for moment. Her record title is
notice 10 Remington, and he could not deal
with her land TO her disadvantage.
Here was no defeasance running TO Mrs.
King, and none was needed. She put her
property in TO secure Remington for his adj
yances for her husbands benefit. 1t was
the plain duty of Remington to satisfy his
demands out of Col. Kings property before
reSorting to hers. Remington has in fact
made present to Robert 5. lines of a
large portion of Mrs. Kings property, I'M
der the pretense that it is compensation TO
Innes for services. The falsity of this pre-
tense Is annarpnf InnPS nrohahlv navar