St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-01
STILL Ut.
Judge shaw Talking i'm the King
Remington Suit.


the King-Remington suit BE spoke rap
! idly and made few pauseS or digreSsions
As a result he covered a good deal Of
ground and may be able 10 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 relation which would
prevent him from becoming the purchaser
Of the equity Of redemption Upon this
point he quoted a number Of authorities 10
show that the law does not hold that a
mortgage conveys, but only a security.
A MORTGAGE is often called q trustee, and
( in limited sense this character might be
( attributed 70 hun. for there might be a duty
resting upon m0rtgagee 10 discharge a
particular claim against the property mort
gagged. A mortgage is bound TO account
Tor rents taxes and profits, and in this re-
spect might be called d trustee, but except
in some special sense that was not the rela-
ton he bore 10 the mortgagor. A mort
gagee who IS in possession Is also
| sometimes spoken of as a tenant.
ana while the analogy between the two re-
| latiOns is not close it is difficult to see any
reason for denying the right Of a mortgage
to purchase and hold adversely to the mort
/ gagor in cases where the tenant would be
/ allowed to purchase ana hold against the
landlord.
Another ground upon which the plaintiffs
/ claim that Remington became 50 situated
I that he could not take under the bankruptcy
/ sale title adverse 10 King is the agreement
/ alleged in their replies between King and
Remington and hines ia connection. Judge
! Shaw here read
! THE AGREEsmNr.
/ which is denied by the defendants. The
/ facts alleged with respect 70 the agreement
are about as follows: First. that there was
/ 10 be a sale by the two assignees; second.
! that King desired 70 have the title Of the
/ assignee procured for him. 20 the end that
! the relations between him King and Rem
! mgtOn might continue without any embaT-
! rassnlent from any claim or title BY a third
1 party; third, that King intended 90 buy IN
! the assignee's title IOr himself, and 90
! have E.it hidden for him in trnst;
fourth, that friends We're ready with funds
% buy In the property; fifth that King de-
clared 70 Remington and lnnes such inten-
/ COn; sixth, that il was expressly agreed
between Remington and King that the
I latter should NOT bid at such sale but that
! Remington should have the lands hidden
OF in bis name for the purpose of c0ntinu-
! ing the trust and relations heretofore eN-
isting; seventh. that in pursuance OF the
agreement King RETAINED from bidding and
I the lands were hidden of in Remngton's
name for SIS; that BY reason thereof Rem
ington was enabled to get the title Of the
assignee at a greatly less price than he
/ otherwise could have obtained IL. TheprOOf
Of the agreement which has been offered is
/ entirely verbal The detailed conversations
are received subject 20 an objection that
! the same are incompetent and that
under cur 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-
p1essiy prescribe that only an agreement
in writing. signed By the parties VIII SUI
ice. Again. this agreement mnst be looked
at in the same way as ii any one else. other
than King, who had never seen or known
/ Remington was setting up claim 70 re-
deem this property by it.
The judge then went on at some length
TO show that the agreement came within
I the statutes OF frauds, combating the the
/ Ory that the transaction between King and
| Remington respecting the bankruptcy sale
constitutes "a 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 20 which the attention Of the
court was particularly called was thar King
alleges that he. Remington and Innes de
iberately agree 70 suppress bidding at the
bankruptcy sale. to the end that King might
get the lands 10 make money ont of, and
tllat the result was that the property was
bid in Tor S25. IL this is true it was a
DELIBERATELY CONCEIVED FRAUD
upon the assignee the court Of bankruptcy
and the general creditors of King. Yet
King has the effrontery, after having de-
ibemtely cOncocbed and carried out the
scheme. 10 ask a court of equity 10 decree
10 him the anticipated fruits of t.
Mr.. King, with characteristic abandon
and sang froid, says that no one was 10 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. Ii 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, 10 continue
TO hold this property As q mortgage Or
/ trustee. with 500, 600 10 S15o 600 Of prior
liens upon IL. Yet King saws that in order
that he might speculate, 81 Remington and
, Innes thought il best 70 do this. - and
then they deliberately used the machinery
OF the bankrupt court 10 defeat the object
of the bankrupt law.
Il would seem that Mr.. King had. and
yet has, an idea that Mr.. Remington was
! brought into existence, and lived and
moved ard had his being. and was bound 20
devote and continue indefinitely 70 devote
: his whole fortune with an utter abuegati0n
Of his own interests for the express and
only purpose Of serving and promoting the
welfare and glorifcati0n of William 5.
King.
1t is characteristic of some people to con
template the earth and tine fullness thereof
as belonging TO them by a sort of divine
5 right, and to aver that they are wrong
fully and frsudulently dealt with
! If anybody presUmes to question their as
sumptions. 1t appears likewise that the
l plaintiff and his learned counsel have an
idea that the bankrupt law was curningly
devised pretense ana codifcatiOn Of a sys-
TEN of legaiized fraud. a sort Of a judibial
mill where spendthrifts after borrowing ana
e wasting the substance Of credulOus and con-
2 fding creditors, might put themselves and
/ what they aver to be the valuable remain
ders and equities Of their incumbered es-
e tstes into the hopper at front and be turned
e out at the spout at the rear and with q cleal
: discharge and redemption from pursuit b,
5 their victims, and all the estate which thel
had pretended 70 surrender still In theil
j hands. They should remember the maxim
eXturpi causa non oritur actio, or as Ia.
n same idea Is sometimes expressed. He whg
< asks relief from a court of equity mus