St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-25

apolis. He said that Mr.. Cole was mis-
taken when he claimed for his client that
he had added so largely to the beauties of
Minneapolis by building the sixty houses
in he western part of the city. Said ne:
why those houses are the laughing stock of
Minneapolis. Some of them are built out of
Kings old fence rails. 1t Is possible to live
in them in summer by wrapping mosquito
bars around them, but in tho winter when
the cold blasts blow through them, they simply
stand there with nothing TO do, simply stand
resisting the blast until they can come into
this accounting that we ask for
When he said this MIR. Menage smiled
family. At another time he took occasion
to speak of the weakness of the other side.
Said he:
! Brother Cole appears especially in the in
terests of Menage, and doesn't care what be-
comes OF 1nneS and Remington; Brother Da-
Wis appears for Innes, and doesn't care what
becomes of ME others; while Mr.. Herman,
who was Entrusted with Mr.. Remington's
especial interests, has nothing to saw Mr..
Shaw seems to be assigned to look after all
three and his position suggests that of the
setting hen who had more eggs put in the
nest than she could cover. You see what an
array we have to contend against.
THE BRIEF.
The brief submitted by Mr.. Wilson opens
with u somewhat lengthy statement of the
case in which the history of the transactions
between King and Remington is briefly given,
which has become familiar to the public from
the litigation of the past year and half.
The first point elaborated by Mr.. Will
son was to what lands the original
contract relates. The appellants say only
to the lands described in the deeds of
1876 and that all other lands were acquired
through independent sources of title leaving
King without any equity in them. The find
ingS of the court below to the effect that it
W. ~ mis- init
and defendant Remington that all the lands
in Minnesota should be conveyed subject to
the terms of the agreement, and that when
the deeds were made it was supposed by both
parties that all the lands belonging to King in
Minnesota were included in the deeds. On
this point the counsel said it matters not
whether the lands be conSidere as held under
the original contract; it must be considered
merely security and subject to the same con-
ditionS. The relation between King and
Remington was of q fduciary nature, and
Remington became trustee under the orig
inal agreement.
Remington could not acquire at the bank
rupt sale, or by any purchase of outstanding
titles, to any of the securities any interest in
the property of King which could hold ad-
verse to him or which could operate to dis.
charge him from his relation as trustee
Kings interest in his real estate was not
merely theoretical one, but one of great
value. The estate was all realty, and only
about Sc, 600 OF debts had been proved against
the estate and these appear to have been
settled otherwise than from any proceeds of
the bankrupt sale. King, Notwithstanding
his bankruptcy, had right to acquire prop
erty. The parol agreement regarding the
purchase of bankrupt sale is not within the
statute of frauds, or in violation of the
statute of uses and trust. 1t was not against
public policy.
The point was made that Appellant Menage
is not bona fide purchaser as against Kings
equities. The finding of the district court
was quoted in support Of this, and Mr.. Wilson
said: From this recital and from an eXamn-
alton of the contemporaneouS agreement be-
tween Menage and Innes, t appears that this
alleged sale was of very peculiar nature.
lnneS, as Kings agent determines at what
price the lands should be sold to himself No
money is paid at the time of making the con-
tract, but afterwards, whenever the firm of
Menage Innes has arranged a sale of part
of the lands, Innes, as RemingtOn's agent, de-
termines what amounts of money and what
securities shall be accepted for conveyance
of these lands to the firm of which he is a
member. Assuming 1t as established that
bennington holds only as security for Kings
Indebtedness and as trustee for the surplus
for Mr.. and Mrs. Kings benefit, and that
InneS had notice of such relations before the
sale of Jan. 81, 1882, then the plaintiff maintains
that Menage has no rights under that sale
which are not subject to the equities of plain
The contract of sale and the collateral agree
ment between Innes and Menage constituted
them partners as TO the property embraced in
the sale, and that Innes' notice is carried
constructively to Menage; that tho lands and
proceeds have only gone to swell the partner
ship profits; that the circumstances of the
sale, in connection with reference in the
original deeds, were sufficient to put Menage
on his inquiry as to plaintiffs rights that if
1nnes were not u partner, he must be consid-
cred partner; he must be considered the
agent of Menage for the purchase and Men
age is bound b. his knowledge; that Menage,
having paid nothing on the purchase, except
as realized out of the sales OF lands, and hay-
ing entered into no engagement against which
he cannot be fully protected, has no rights
TO which plaintiffs equities are not superior
Menage is not a bona tide purchaser, because
he has not paid or invested anything in the
land.
CLOSING REMARKS.