St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-04

deed to the lot, which was
filed last March. Smith asked that the
property be adjudged as belonging to
him on his paying the balance Of the
purchase. The answer to the suit has
counter charges against Smith.
The answer admits that Rooney held
a power of attorney from Robitshek,
that Rooney contracted for the sale of
the lot to Smith, and that Smith paid
some amount of money on the deal, but
denies any knowledge on the part of
the plaintiffs of Smiths being willing
to pay the balance, and also that Rob
erts q Knight had any knowledge OF
all the circumstances attending the
contract between Smith and Rooney.
as Smith alleges. All the trading for
that lot has gone on through Frank P.
Pitcher, whom Rooney, acting as attor-
ney in fact for RobitShek, had employed
for that purpose. The answer AYERS
Pitchers authority has never been re-
voked.
John Day Smith in his complaint al
legged that he contracted for the lot in
question in October, 1889. This answer
now sets forth that in the preceding
August. two months before Smith claims
to have bought it, Roberts & Knight
contracted for the same lot, which was
to be sold to them within thirty days.
Within the specified time. it is alleged,
they agreed to take the lot and paid $50
to bind the deal. 1t is further claimed
thot on the I'd of September, still
month before Smith claims to have
bought it, Roberts & Knight were
given an abstract of the title to the lot.
On the very next day, tits alleged, they
employed John Day Smith as their at
torney to examine that abstract and to
assist them in closing up the trade, and
told him all about the lot in question,
the abstract and the contract which they
had made for it.
Now comes the beginning of the seri
Gus charges against John Day Smith.
The answer sets forth that Smith, in
violation of the confidence which they
had reposed in him, and, contrary
to professional honor, offered Thomas
Rooney. Robitshek's attorney, greater
price for the lot than Roberts &
Knight, his clients, had agreed to pay.
Notwithstanding this offer Rooney is
said to have come on to Minneapolis
from Ontario, and to have ratified the
sale TO Roberts & Knight. They then
notified Pitcher. Rooney's agent, that
they were satisfied with the title to the
lot, and would close the deal. 1t is
claimed that they offered to fulfill the
contract with Pitcher Oh the 9th of
September, 1889. and to have made the
same offer to Rooney on the 30th.
On the 26th of September, it is said
Roberts & Knight, Rooney & Robit-
shek, having failed to comply with the
terms of the contract, began suit to en-
force its fulfillment. That suit was dis
missed couple OF weeks afterward,
and Roberts & Knight began another
suit, in which all the foregoing facts
were set forth. Here again come in
some strong allegations against Smith.
1t is set forth that he, in violation OF his
duties as attorney for Roberts IL
Knight, and with full knowledge of the
contract which they had made for the
lot in question, represented to Rooney
that the contract which Roberts &
Knight had made for the property could
not be enforced in law, ana told Rooney
that he would pay 81, 100 for the lot, and
take care of the suit brought by Roberts
81 Knight at his own cost. IL is al
legged that, in pursuance of that talk be-
tween him and Rooney, Smith procured
a written contract from RObitShek, and,
by means of false representation, Sc
GIlC vi JuC ny
Rooney, as attorney in fact for Robit-
Shek.
After receiving this contract, it is
alleged that Smith employed Hart &
Brewer to prepare al answer 10 the
suit of Roberts & Knight. the answer
being made in the name of Robitshek.
The case came on for trial on Jan. %
last, Smith being present and assisting
in the trial. On Feb. II, Judge Smith
filed decision in the case, setting forth
that Roberts q Knight were entitled to
the specific performance of the contract
entered into between them and Robit-
shek, through Pitcher q Rooney. A
judgment and decree of court, in con-
formity with the aforementioned de-
cision, was entered on the 18th of last
month. which decision and order for
judgment have never been appealed
from.
1t is alleged that Smith was the real
party In interest and defendant in the
case, instead of Robitshek & Rooney,
whose names appeared on the paper as
defendants. 1t is further stated that,
in obedience to the orderof the court,
RDbitshek, through Rooney, on the 23d
of March, 1890. executed to Roberts &
Knight deed to the lot, which deed is
now On file.
In closing their answer, the defend
ants allege that, by reason of the ''fraud-
ulent, wrongful and unprofessional acts
of John Day Smith. he does not come
into court with clean hands, and is not
entitled to any relief at the hands Of a
court of equity" They demand, there
fore. that the complaint of John Day
Smith be dismissed; that they have
judgment and decree, and that the con-
tract held by Smith be declared null and
void.