St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-08-21
THE REFUSAL EXPLAINED.
Answer of the Trust Company to
the Demand That They Buy the
Mortgage.

Answer of the Trust Company to
the Demand That They Buy the
Mortgage.
The demand of a portion OF the CHI il
dren OF the late Commodore Kittsou.
made in probate court. that The trust
company be required to purchase the
mortgage On the Kittson homestead,
charging the amount SO expended up to
their interest in the coinmodore'S eS-
tate, calls forth yoluminouS answer
from the trust company. Summarized,
the trust compauy'S answer is as fol-
lows
A-By reason OF the said Farley
suit" now pending i'll said supreme
court of the United States. and the ex-
listing orders of this court in that be-
half in the matter OF this estate, and
which orders have been affirmed on ap-
peal by the district court for sad Ram
Sey county and by the. supreme court
Of this state. and by reason OF the fur
Their fact that the said Farley suit will,
in all human probability, be decided and
finally determined by said supreme
court Of the United States during the
coming winter. and. in such event, the
money and property of said estate will
be required for immediate distribution,
the said executor has 10 power or au-
thority under the law to make any per-
maneut investment of such moneys.
either IN mortgages or otherwise, or to
charge the same to the account of said
estate, as requested by said petitioners
Builder the laws of this state the
said executor has no power or authority
IN fnttd,. mi 1, in,
mortgages, except upon unincumbered
real estate worth double the amount of
the obligation So secured, And the
twenty-elghthS section of the will of said
deceased. which limits and defines the
powers of said executor i'll l0aning the
funds of said estate, limits such invest
ments for such reasonable time as il
shall deem eXpedient, and upon such
improved real estate in the city of st.
Paul as is worth twice the sum loaned.
Chat the title to said homestead
property. described in said alleged mort
cages, Is incumbered by the ownership
of an undivided one-iifth thereof by the
said Alfred s. kittSon, who is a minor.
aud which interest is not covered by
said alleged mortgages, and by a large
accumulation of taxes and assessments
on said property, which said mortgag0rS
have failed and neg!ecled-to pay, con-
trary to their covenants and agreements
therein contained, aud which said taxes
and assessments are prior liens to
the lien of said alleged mort
cages; that the interest of said
mortgagors in said property COW
cred 10y said alleged mortgages is not
worth double the amount OF money
which it would be necessary to advance
and pay for the purchase OF said alleged
mortgages aud the said prior liens there
Oh. That the said alleged mortgages
were not good or desirable Investments
at the time they were made, and were
not such as this executor could then
have male, under the law and under
said will; that the said other real estate
(other than said homeSteaU described
i'll said alleged mortgage, then produced
Il merely nominal income; that the said
homestead property has been, since
the date OF said alleged; mortgages.
totally abandoned by its said owners,
and has been suffered and permitted to
go to ruin and decay for want of such
use and occupation; that ii has pro-
duced no income whatever, and has
greatly deprecated in value. That
within the last six months the said Her
cules l.. Kittson, Louisa l.. Baker and
Marie X. Weaver have offered their
GQully dllu IulSlGoJ III LslC uOLltSLccu
and stable real estate, covered by said
alleged mortgages, for sale, for the sum
of 5000 for each of said interests, sub
jeet to said alleged mortgages. and have
not succeed i'll selling the same, and the
same cannot be sold for that sum,
D-That this court has not jurisdic-
ton Or authority to adjudicate or deter
mine any questions which may arise as
TO the validity of the title which said
Mary A. KittSon, deceased, had in and
to said real estate at the date of her
death, if any such questions shall arise
as to such title to any portion of said
real estate covered by said alleged
mortgages. And The fact that the I'M
divided onc-fifth interest of said Alfred
S. KittsoD in and to said homestead and
stable property is not included in or
covered by said alleged mortgages, con-
Stitutes in Itself an all-sufficient ana
valid reason why the said investment
should not be made.
Eft appears from said petition that
default has occurred in the conditions
of said mortgages; that the obligations
secured thereby are now past due, and,
in the hands of any purchaser thereof.
they would be subject to any equities
which may exist between the original
parties thereto. and, therefore, are not
suck marketable securities as any pru-
dent investor would purchase.
Eff this executor should be COM
PEELED to purchase the said securities, it
would be its duty and obligation to
forthwith foreclose the same by reason
of the existing default thereon, and
neither this court, nor any other court,
would have power or authority to pre-
vent such Il foreclosure, unless by rea-
sou of some equity existing between the
original parties; and, if any such equity
exists as would prevent such foreclos-
ure, then such securities would be
worthless to said estate.
Cit does not appear from said petit
ton that the present owner and holder
of said securities IS either anxious or
willing. or under any obligation to sell
the same; and, if its valuation of the
said securities agrees with that of said
petitioners. it will probably not be in
duced TO give the benefits of its invest
ment to others. either upon the sugges-
ton of said petitioners or upon any or
der this court may make herein.