St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-02
The Arguments in the Great Land Suit
Still Going on in the Dis
trict Court.
interesting Events at the First Days
Meeting ofthe Driving Park
Association.
Bonds Sold and Electric Lights Or
dered by the Much
Routine Work.
General News from the Courts--lsi1te
and Shot-Gun--M Minor Crimes
General Notes.
THE BIG SUIT.
fudge Shaw Finishes His Argument
--Hon. e. VI. Wilson'S Plea.


in the King Remington suit, Judge Shaw
resumed his discussion of parole evidence
continuing his consideration OF the question
As TO whether verbal evidence can De alloWeu
to vary the effect of the deeds given Dy drs.
King in 1877 and 1879. he clUeu huilieIouS
authorities to show that contemporaneous
verbal agreement cannot be SHOWN 10 ilie
effect that a deed should not have the enect
which unon its face it purports to have.
The plaintiffs may claim that this case
comes within the principle which permits
parole evidence to show that absolute deed
was intended as a mortgage. IN support OF
this theory it is claimed that Remington de-
sired to mortgage or sell some OF the lands
included in the original arrangement, and
that the deeds were given to facilitate such
CONVEYANCE to the second parties. There IS
evidence tending to show that question had
been raised to
REMINGToN'S TITLE
10 portions of the lands which Mrs. King
claims. 1t would seem, then, by the allega-
tons of the plaintiffs that the deeds were
given for the purpose Of quoting these very
questions. While we do not admit lnat IL
was given as a continuation OF the original
mortgage, it is difficult to understand why
it should have been thought necessary TO
conditions as the former deed of 1879. IL
thls effect was intended why was 1t not
evidenced by an agreement in writing OF
he sort made when the deeds of 1873 were
given? But as these inconsistencies are IN
sisted upon it is necessary TO inquire
whether the agreement can be established
without writing.
There never was any loan to Mrs. King,
and the relation of debtor and creditor
never existed between her and Remington,
although this relation did exist between her
husband and Remington III 1879.
She mortgaged her property in 1879 to Sc
cure an Indebtedness of her husband when
The relation of debtor had been removed by
the discharge in bankruptcy. SO there was
no circumstance upon which conveyance
by Mrs. King to Remington could be SAID TO
be a mortgage or anything other than an
absolute conveyance, or conveyance Ill
trust. If it was absolute on Its face, no
trust being expressed in the deed or any
other writing. parole evidence is not adj
missabIe to establish that the trust
relation debars the absolute deed
Judge Shaw next took up the charge OF
ACTUAL FRAUD
nm the mart of Innes in obtaining the deed
of October, 1879. King swears that lnnes
came to his house and said he had another
ouitclaim deed TO be signed to correct
some defect in the former deed to the Brad
ford and Lewis lots in order to satisfy Dr:
Elliot: that he and his wife signed the deed
without reading it, and supposlng IL was
not a new conveyance. Also that Col.
Innes must have heard him tell his wife
that this deed was simply to correct some
error. Mrs. King says that MI.
King told her i'll the presence Of
Col. Innes that the deed was
to the elevator lots and was to correct same
error. Mr.. Heffelfnger is not very positive
about the matter, and Charles Clark, as
might be expected. testified in behalf OF MS
partron, Col. King, little more strongly
than the colonel himself would even ven
ture. Col. lines teStitieS that the deed was
handed to Col. King several days before IL
was executed, and upon cross-eXamlnatlon
Mr.. King would not swear that he had not
seen the deed before that day. The deed
bears evidence on its face that the signature
of Col. King was made at a different time
and place from that of Mrs. King. The
theory of the defense is that Col. King
signed the deed at his Office after lnnes had
given it to him, and took it home to have
him sign. The statement that the grantors
did not know that the deed contained more
than the elevator lots is astounding, when
it is considered that the description to the
elevator lands would not occupy more tnan
two and a half lines whereas there are
fifteen lines of description in the deed. II
the grantors did not notice that the de-
scriptiOn was more than sufficient to cover
the elevator lots, it was such gross negli-
gence on their part as court OF equity Will
not relieve against.
After a lengthy discussion of the details
of the circumstances attending the signing
of the deed. Judge Shaw went on to say III
regard to the claim that no consideration
was paid by Remington, that the supreme
court has held that it cannot be shown that
a deed which expresses consideration upon
its face was in fact without a consideration
for the purpose of defeating the deed.
The next point referred to was the effect
of the
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
upon the rights of Mrs. King as to her sep
arate property and right of subrogation
An elaborate discussion here followed
which concluded Judge Shaw's argument
In closing. he expressed regret that he haC
been compelled to occupy so much of thu
courts time, but thought it was unavoid
able in justice to his clients and himself
He said when the main points of the cas-
are decided. other questions will arise whicl
must be argued. If it is found that the de
PENDANTS are liable, it must be decided as Il
which defendants and to what extent
Also the amount of property to be included
that which was included in the deeds, AM
that which was omitted. The question vii
arise as to whether Menage can be he'll
liable as a trustee, he having set up a sep
arate and distinct answer, etc. Certain
schedules of property and map were sub
mitted, and Judge Shaw sat down, afte
having occupied nearly three days in hi
elaborate argument.
THE OTHER SIDE.
At 8 o'clock Hon. E. NJ. Wilson, for tn
plaintiff, addressed the court, saying that h
agreed with the speaker who had jus
closed that the case was very importan
one. both on account of the enOrmOu
amount of money involved, the interesting
legal questions raised, but also because tn
honor and integrity of some of the defend
ants are at stake. The public has exhibits
great interest and if the people const
tuted the tribunal no statement on behal
of William S. King would be necessary.
great trust has been grossly violated an
we now come to a court of equity for jus
tice
The two cases of William S. King an
Caroline NJ. King are almost identical, wit
the distinction that the latter case reveal
woman, who, with a wife's devotion. CAV
all her property to secure her husband
debts. Although the debts have beel
satisfied three or four times over, her prop
erty is held from her. 1t is
matter of surprise and regret that Phil
Remington should darl1en his declinin
days by becoming party to such trans
action. William S. King and Philo Rem
mgton had been intimate friends for man