St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-06-30
MINNEAPOLIS NEWS.
The Argument for the Defense Begun in
the Famous King-Remington
Land Suit.
Singing Taunts Flung Out at the Close Of
the Northern Pacific Injunc-
ton Suit.
The New Scheme of the Lumbermen
for Distributing the Scatter
ing Logs.
The Retail Grocers--The Anniversary
of the Y. NJ. c. A.--Current
Comment.
KING-REmHNGT0N SUITS.
Arguments i'm the Great Land Case-'
Judge ShaW's Plea.

KING-R ENAHNeTE SUITS
Arguments i'm the Great Land Case--
Judge ShaW's Plea.
The hearing Of the arguments in the suits
of William S. and Caroline NJ. King vs..
Philo Remington. Robert S. lnnes and l..
f. Menage began yesterday morning in the
district court before Judges Koon and
Young. Judge ]. NJ. Shaw opened for the
defense, occupying the entire day. His ar
gument in brief was as follows:
THE ARGUMENT.
The two cases of William S. and Caroline
M. King cannot properly be considered sep
aratelv. The general claim of William S.
King against Philo Remington seems to be,
first. that June Is, 1875, King was indebted
to Remington, and, wishing to procure fur
Their loans, conveyed to Remington certain
lands in Minnesota as security Tor
all past indebtedness and promises
fcf future advances; that they
embodied in their agreement, terms and
conditions under which Remington received
such conveyances in a written agreement;
second, it is claimed by King that twas
intended to include in the agreement, as
security. other real estate which was
omitted, and that by subsequent convey
ances upon execution and mortgage sales
the title to all these omitted lands has been
vested in Remington only as security for
such purposes, and it is demanded that this
property shall now be brought within the
operation of the original transaction to the
end that Remington shall account to King;
third. it is claimed by King that the re-
lations between himself and Remington
were the relation of debtor and creditor;
King as mortgagor, Remington as mortgage,
or creditor holding property in trust as
security upon which it is sought to predl-
cate a relation of trustee, continued I'M
changed from that time to the commence
ment of these actions; fourth, that
Remington is held to account with
King concerning all the property
of King originally conveyed to him. All
that was owned by King which was subse-
ouently acquired; certain property known
as the Stevens eighty, the interest of King
in which, subject to mortgage to Stevens,
was shortly after delivery of deeds Of June,
1875, transferred to Remington as security,
to stand upon the same footing as all other
property. The general
CLAIM AGAINST INNES
is, first, that Innes is chargeable with no
tice of whatever were the relations between
King and Remington, as to all the property
which had originally belonged to King;
second, assuming the relations between
King and Remington to have continued to
be as before stated with reference to the
claims on behalf of King against Reming-
ton, Innes, having claimed to hold certain
interests and rights in portions of said
lands. is also answerable to King to the eX-
tent of what he has received and holds.
THE CLAIM AGAINST MENACE
is, first, that he was cogniZant Of the rela-
tons between King and Remington, and
hines, as agent of Remington; second, that
he conspired with lines and Remington to
cheat and defraud King, taking and receiv-
ing from Remington large portions of the
lands of which King demands an account
ing.
The claim of Caroline NJ. King against
Remington seems to be, first, that she con-
veyed to him certain lands as security for
William S. King and that Remington held
the same under the agreement with King;
that the defeaSance which was executed be-
tween King and Remington would inure to
her benefit as if she had been
party to it; that she became mort
gagor of her separate property for
her husbands debt and was a surety;
second, that such relation continued
to exist, and therefore, third, that
Remington is held to account with her;
fourth, that subsequently her husband,
with her consent, mortgaged her personal
property to Remington, to-wit.: the Pioneer
Press stock, as additional security, which
Remington appropriated and is accountable
for, while William S. King claims that this
stock was Wrongfully sold, and that he is
entitled to credit for the proceeds. Mrs.
King also claims that it was wrongfully sold
and that she is entitled to secure its present
value.
As against Innes, Mrs. King claims, first,
that, being the agent of Remington, he has
received certain portions of said lands, and
also proceeds from other of said lands, for
which he shall account to her.
AS against Menage, Mrs. King claims
nothing directly, further than that she is en-
titled to have a lien upon the property
which he received from Remington for what
over amount of money may be found due to
her upon the accounting which she claims
with Remington.
r With respect to the claims of William S.
King our contention is that his transaction
with Remington constituted mortgage
and that the relation of mortgager and
mortgage in respect to the lands described
in the deeds of June Is, 1875, was estab-
lished. This was the
FULL PURPoRT
of that transaction. King was indebted,
and wanting more money, offered to convey
his lands as security, and did so upon the
terms and conditions expressed in the writ
ten deeds. Two things are required to
constitute mortgage. There must be a
debtor and creditor and there must be a
conveyance of property to the creditor as
security. 1t matters little as to what form
of words the transaction is put in. There
are sufficient authorities to show that there
was given to the mortgage power to sell
the property for the purpose of realizing
upon debt, but this does not alter the
general character of the transaction. tits
true that a mortgage will not be permitted
to use the power of sale in fraud of the
mortgagor to the extent that he should not
fraudulently exercise any specific power
given him in furtherance of the general
purpose of the MORTGAGE. He may, per-
haps, be said to occupy, sub modO, a
trust relation to the mortgagor, but in all
other respects he stands in the same posi-
ton to the estate of the mortgagor as any
other person. In several instances our
OWN SUPREME COURTS
have uniformly treated transactions of the
haracter as mortgages. The plaintiffs in the
original complaint swore that the transaction
was mortgage, but found that this theory
would not answer. Then King suddenly re-
members that Mr.. Remington did not want
mortgage, and he told him that he King
would give him deed. The plaintiff fances
that if it can be made to appear that this
transaction was deed in trust they will
avoid the effect of the sale in bankruptcy
by alleging that Remington, being a trustee
could not buy the title of his cestui
que trust. We shall claim that even if it is
a trust, when the cestui que trust has parted
with his title and interest in the property,
which is the subject of the trust. the trustee
NAV purchase it of his assignee. There are