St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-06-14
EQUITY VERSUS JUSTICE.
A Case Where Wrong Is Right
Supreme Court Findings.

Supreme Court Findings.
Only one of the four cases decided by
the supreme court, as will be seen by
the syllabi below, was vested with gen
eral public interest. This particular
case is of that peculiar sort in which
the law seems directly opposed to the
equity of the appeal, and in which the
plaintiffs were willfully defrauded out
of their realty holdings. 1t appears to
be one of those sad incidents where no
statutory provision is made for the pro-
lection of property rights. Frederick
Peters and wife, living on farm In
Freedom county, in 1877 decided the
land to their son, Frederick Peters Jr.
This deed was executed in considera-
ton of written agreement on the part
of the son to support and maintain the
parents during the balance of their lives,
to pay them certain sum of money an
nually, etc. In 1879 the son, with the
consent of the parents, conveyed the
farm to one Reiners, who assumed all
the obligations mentioned. Then in
1881 Reiners transferred the land, also
with the knowledge and consent of
Peters Sr. and wife, under precisely the
same conditions, to Henry Tunell, who,
in turn, without knowledge or consent
of the plaintiffs, and with intent to de-
fraud, sold eighty acres of the farm to
one HintZ, forty acres to Henry Peters
and the residence, forty acres, to George
Steep, and they still hold the land. In
1882 the old folks were forced to leave
the farm because they were not pro-
vided with the means of maintenance.
Frederick Peters Jr., Reiners and
Tunell have successfully become insol-
vent, and the original owners sought re-
lief on vendors lien. The court holds
that they are unable to secure such
lien on their claim, and the old folks
lose their property. The syllabus OF
the case is given below:
Frederick Peters ct al, appellants, VS.. Henry
Tunell ct al, respondents. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, j.
Syllabus: A vendors lien upon real
estate does not arise in the case OF sale
of both real and personal property for
one entire sum or consideration with
out any distinct price being set upon
the real property. Nor is such lien
implied to secure the performance OF
the consideration for the transfer OF
real estate when the consideration is OF
such nature that the court cannot &C
dSCOI CdlH 0Lo oOAIC ohO
amount of the charge to be thus imposed
upon the land-as where the considera-
ton is an agreement to support the
grantor during life.
Hurry R. Burns, appellant, vs.. Sallie
Schneider ct al, respondent. Order deny
ing new trial reversed. DICKINSON, j.
Syllabus: In an action to recover for
breach of covenant against incum-
brances in deed conveying lands for
one entire pecuniary consideration ex-
pressed in the deed and actually paid,
evidence is not admissible in defense
of prior parole agreement to the eff
feet that as to part OF the granted land
upon which an incumbrance resteO
that consideration was not applicable,
but that the conveyance was gratuitous.
Lothman, A. H. Lindeke, assignee appe
liant, VS.. George A. Clark d Bro, respond
ents. Judgment affirmed. DICKINSON, J.
The partnership firm of George A.
Clark & Bro. presented a claim OF in
debtedness of $146,333 for allowance
against the inSolvent estate of the firm
of Shotwell, Clerihew & Lothman,
which was disallowed by the assignee.
The claimants appealed TO the district
court. The matter was referred to
George G. Ripley ESQ.,, upon whose re-
port in favor of the claimants judgment
was entered allowing the claim. From
that judgment the assignee OF the in
solvent estate prosecuted this appeal.
Syllabus: The members of copart-
nerShip having made general assign
ment of both individual and partnership
property for the benefit of creditors, a
4 0lDN ii 70 hi q
claim in the insolvency proceedings,
partnership character. 1t being agreed
between the members of copartner-
ship that it should be dissolved; that a
new partnership should be formed con-
sisting of some of, the members of the
old firm: that the new firm should take
all the assets OF the old firm and should
paw all its debts; held that an
indebtednss thus assumed became a
debt of the new firm and prOvable as
such in subsequent insolvency pro-
ceedings against the new firm. An
allowance by the district court, as
claim against an insolvent estate, of the
amount of promiSsOry note of the in
solvents given in renewal of former
notes for an indebtedness, sustained,
although the new note included GER
tain amount of interest computed on
the former notes, while the latter did
not on their face bear interest before
maturity, the evidence not having been
returned.
The case of Hartford ct al. vs.. Cooper
was brought up from Mobiles county,
and is an appeal from an order over
ruling a demurrer to the complaint.
The case is one referring to indorse-
ments on negotiable paper, and the
syllabus is as follows:
R. A. Harbord ct al. respondents, VS.. Ed
ward Cooper, appellant. Order affirmed.
DICKINSON, j,
Syllabus: The payee of negotiable
paper having by Endorsement made it
payable to the orderaof another, adding
also in the same Endorsed contract
guaranty of payment, held that the
contract thus Endorsed was assignable
and the assignee might recover thereon;
and further. that the assignment of the
notes transfer, as also the Endorsed con-
tract of guaranty.
The following cases were argued and
submitted in the supreme court yester-
day! Edwin Groesbeck, appellant VS..
Cora B. Matteson ct al, respondents,
and Mark ID. Flower, appellant, VS..
Sarah A. Davidson ct al, respondents.
The action of Patrick Walsh, receiver,
=. o-nollontc VIC II, r. Rvrppc of al