St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-09

1
he asserted, they were made to hinder, de-
lay and defraud creditors. 1t was scarcely
worth while to waste any time on this
proposition, but the perfect answers to it
are, first, there is no proof of that fact;
second, if it were made for that express
purpose, it is good as between the parties,
and no one but creditor who is hindered
and delayed. can raise any objection. Mr..
Remington is not such creditor. 1t would
be curious to explain why Mrs. King
should turn out all her property to secure
creditors if either she or her husband de-
signed to cheat them.
REMINGTON WAS NOT A CREDITOR
at all of King at the time King executed
the deed to his wife or caused it to be done.
1t does not appear that the Seattle money
had been advanced at that time. Besides,
queer way to cheat Remington it would
be to give him all the property as security.
The attempt TO show that Mrs. King was
not surety by showing that some of the
money was borrowed for her benefit,
utterly failed. Col. Kings testimony shows
that there was no provision made for any
liens on his wife'S property. Whatever
Remington did in that regard, was done
for his own protection and in taking care of
the property entrusted to him by Mrs. King.
Mr.. Van VoOrhis here concluded reading
his printed brief, and adjournment was
taken for dinner.
THE CLOSING PLEA.
In the afternoon court convened a half
hour earlier, in order TO afford Y. p. Bryant
an opportunity to complete the argument
for the plaintiff. The fame of the ability
and eloquenee of this distinguished attor-
ney, which has reached Minneapolis from
Boston, drew out a large attendance of
spectators and the court room was COM
pletely filled, many ladies being among the
number. Mr.. Bryant spoke for three hours
very earnestly, devoting his attention to
review of the circumstances surrounding
the various transactions, for the purpose of
showing that the original agreement be-
tween King and Remington was a deed of
trust and not a mortgage. His plea was
more interesting to the spectators than the
preceding arguments of the counsel, for the
reason that he did not consider any abStruse
legal problems, but confined him
self to an endeavOr to link
together chain of evidence which would
indicate that the agreement was under
stood and considered to be trust by all
parties concerned until the alleged plot was
sprung by Innes TO cheat King out of his
property. He first returned thanks to the
court for its patient endurance, and re-
ferred TO the efforts of the counsel for the
other side as both able and ingenious; as
commanding the admiration, but not the
assent, OF himself and colleagues.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS
of court of equity is to correct mistakes;
to right the wrong in cases of fraud, so that
the real intentions of the parties to an in
strument of agreement shall be carried out.
He would treat the cases as inseparable,
statement the oral agreements, and the
conduct of the parties what the real inten-
ton was.
All things are in harmony with the theory
which we accept and insist upon. We have
the facts and ask the court to examine and
penetrate them, and have right to ask it.
The first great source from which to judge
the Intention of the parties is the agree
ment between Remington and King. At
glance it is plain that Remington was to
hold, to manage, to preserve the property
for King. The instrument may be crudely
drawn up, but it is sufficient TO show what
the intentions of the parties were. The
right to sell and mortgage was given, to be
exercised at indefinite times should such
and such contingencies arise. The amounts
were left blank, and the time for repayment
was not set, showing that the property was
1t then became the duty of Philo Reming-
ton to sell theiS property, not for his own
benefit but for their mutual benefit. The
right to sell to use proceeds therefrom to
pay OFF debts other than his own was duty
and ga power wholly foreign to q mere
mortgage. The amplest resources for the
preservation of the property and the protec-
ton of himself were given to Philo REM
ington. 1t was his duty, as distinguished
from the power of a mortgage, to sell, and
he could not become purchaser. When he
accepted these trusts by signing this instru-
ment of defeaSance, he could secure his re-
lease only by executing its obligations.
Securing and cOrrobOrating this instru-
ment is the parol agreement
WHAT WERE THE RELATIONS
of the parties and what were the circum-
stances leading to the execution of the vari-
Gus instruments between them? In April. |
Isl, 5 Remington was not a creditor of |
King. and King went to him embarrassed |
by debts. What was his purpose? 4 suit, |
which had been instituted against him by |
the Pacific Steamship company, had alarmed |
his creditors, and unless he could find some
friend to help him he must lose the profits |
of a life. When PhilO Remington yielded |
to this urgent appeal to save this vast prop
erty, he did it to save the fruits of his |
friends life. This was the object which |
was understood. There was not purpose |
indicated through the conduct of these |
parties through a series of years which was
not in accordance with this.
William S. King thought he had a |
princely estate which needed only tempo
rary assistance, but Philo Remington, with
his business prudence, asked if there was
any additional security. Mr.. King said
hot hir haI NJ
ington said it had better all go in, and so
now holds ali, not only of William S. King,
but all his wife had.
Philo Remington accepted this trust. |
There were only two ultimate objects to be |
accomplished. The first was to repay
Remington, the second was to restore to
King and his wife any residue The
first has been accOmpliShed-mOre |
than accomplished. What has be- |
come of that unexhausted residuum? |
1t has come into the hands of persons other |
than the righttul owners. Who are they? |
Menage and lines and Mrs. Remington |
now come into court and claim the property. |
1t is not claimed that William S. King has |
by any act forfeited, nor has by any opera
ton of law broken this agreement. The |
agreement is denied. In all my practice. |
observation and reading, I have never |
known of SO heartless and so constituencies |
defense, nor of course more wicked than |
is now being pursued by these men who are |
now trying TO steal this property.
Mr.. Bryant here depressed to speak con-
corning the omitted lands, simply saying |
that it was not necessary to come to the |
court to reform the deed. In this connee-
ton the history of the Lake City, johnson
and Manwarring judgement sales were |
briefly given. Coming down to the time of |
THE BANKRUPTCY SALE,
he ridiculed the proposition of Judge |
hot hx-T he hon L.