St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-08-04

A..
ton had ever received any money or other
property under said contract up to this
time. That prior to Nov. 8, 1888, Reming-
ton had received sci, 600 from sales of two
OF the ten acre tracts belonging to Mrs.
King which he had plated. That Nov. ).
1888, Remington having received money or
satisfactory securities for the sale of said
lands for the payment of the sum named in
the contract with Innes, decided and con-
veyed to Innes the ten acres of land belong
ing to Mrs. King, upon which Mrs. Boswell
then held mortgage as aforesaid, and also
conveyed to InneS the undivided one-half
OF the lots in Bradford 81 Lewis addition,
ana lots 9, -, Is and II, in block 2, in
hemingt0ns subdivision, being all the lands
Oh MIS-. King then remaining in the name
of Remington, and being worth at that
time over 500, 600.
Twentieth-That in May, 1888, lines. as
the agent of Remington, sold the Pioneer
freSS stock, together with dividends there
torore paid, for $50, That REM
lngton and InneS knew that said stock be-
longed TO Mrs. King. That 10 portion OF
proceeds OF the sale of said lands or of the
availS thereof, or of the money derived
from the sale of said Pioneer-Press stock
has ever been paid to plaintiff or to Mrs.
King, and no part of the land decided to or
acquired by Remington by virtue of the
original agreement has ever been recon-
veyed or returned to plaintiff or Caroline
NJ. King.
Twenty-frst-That all the agreements
relating to said lands between King and
Remington, or King and Innes or Mrs
King and either of the other parties hereto
except where the same are herein stated to
have been in writing, were verbal and rested
wholly in parOl
Twenty-SecOnd-The defendant, Rem
ingtOn, by taking to himself the title to the
Seattle property, and diSpOSing of said
lands and receiving the proceeds thereof.
has released plaintiff from the obligation to
pay any portion of the purchase money so
advanced by Remington originally. and
that for the purpose of any accounting in
this case between King and Remington the
said item of $50, 900 is not to be considered.
Twenty-third- defendant Innes re-
peatedly, when asked by plaintiff as to how
the account stood between plaintiff and
Remington, failed and refused to give him
information respecting the state of said ac-
counts, and that prior to the commence
ment of this action plaintiff demanded of
Remington an accounting, which was re-
fused.
AS CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW:
AAob llttO Tic COlNtldilCt 10 uEle0UGDJ
Remington by plaintiff and his wife June
Is, 1875, of the property in question for the
purpose of security, as stated i'll the findings
OF fact herein, was in legal effect mort
glge.
Second-That by the written agreement
dated June 10. there was given to Reming-
ton power to sell or mortgage the property
so conveyed to him whenever it was for his
interest so to do, for the purposes stated, in
the exercise of such power, and
the relation OF such parties remained that
of mOrtgagOr and mortgagee, but so soon
as defendant assumed to exercise such
power by selling. mOrtgaging, or leasing
said property, there was then and thereby
established between said parties trust re-
IatiOn.
Third-That there was by terms of said
agreement imposed upon defendant, Rem
ingtOn, no express obligation to sell or
otherwise dispose of the property so con-
veyed to him, except that he was obligated
TO convey said property whenever plaintiff
should find purchasers for the same.
Fourth-That in respect to all the prop
erty so held by defendant, Remington,
which he either mOTtgaged or otherwise
used prior to taking possession of all of said
property in the spring of 1878, defendant,
Remington became a trustee of the fund
thereby obtained, and liable to account to
plaintiff for the appropriation made of the
same.
Fifth-By the act of taking possession in
the spring of 1873 of said property. de-
PENDANT, Remington became a mortgage
in possession, liable to account for all the
rents and profits of the same realized by
him.
SiXth-Thatit being mutually understood
nv said nlrfinc Of no Of Il
contract in June, 1875, that plaintiff should
convey to defendant. Remington for security
all the property owned by plaintiff in the
state OF Minnesota, and said parties fully
believed that all of said property had been
so conveyed by deeds of that date, de-
PENDANT, Remington is entitled to have such
deeds so reformed to include the omitted
lands.
Seyenth-That by the assignment of
plaintiff to defendant, Remington, of the
written contract of defeasance which plain
tiff held in respect to the property known
as the Stevens eighty, said defendant
thereby became invested with the plaintiffs
equitable rights and interest in said prop
erty.
Eighth-That by the execution of a mort |
gage upon the property described in said |
last named agreement the relation of the |
parties was not thereby changed in respect |
to said property.
Ninth-That the foreclosure of the Bald |
win mortgage by the Minnesota Mutual |
Fire Insurance association i'll February, /
1877, and the redemption of the property |
from such sale by defendant, Remington. in
1878, and the title thereby acquired by
quitclaim deed from the purchaser at the |
foreclosure sale, did not change the relation
OF the parties herein to said property.
Tenth-That the property known as the
Manwaring tract was among the property
conveyed and intended to be conveyed to
defendant Remington by plaintiff in the
agreement of June ), 1878, and therefore
the title acquired thereto by said defendant
in the manner described, vested in him only
such title as he would have had in case all
of said property had by proper description
been included in the original deeds as was
Eleventh-That the redemption made of
the property sold under and by virtue of the
Johnston judgment. as stated in the eighth
finding of fact therein. did not operate to
vest in defendant Remington any legal title
TO the land so edeemed. The quitclaim
deed of said property from Johnston and
wife to defendant passed no title to the
property, the grantees having no title to
convey.
Twelfth-That the Lake City bank judg-
ment, being one of the debts OF defendant
expressly provided to be paid, the assign
ment of plaintiff of such judgment gave
him no authority to use said judgment as
an instrument for acquiring an averse title
to plaintiffs property.
ThirteeBth-That the agreement between
the plaintiff aud defendant Remington, in
respect to purchase of bankrupt sale in
April. 1878, by said defendant, or plaintiffs
equity in the property then sold by the as