St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-12

holders, so far as they would apply.
taking possession of the property in
May and June, 1879.
In June. 1879, Farley began suit in the
state courts. alleging partnership or
agreement under which he was entitled
to one-fifth of the property. The value
of the stock was stated to be SIS, ,00O, 900,
and his claim of one-ffth therefore
would amount to S3.0o0.OO0. In some OF
the pleadings his interest is stated to be
one-sixth, aud in that case it would be
s2,5OO,OOO.
In this suit he was beaten in the state
supreme court in 1880, and then COM
menced suit in the United States circuit
court. This suit resulted iu his favor in
July. 1882, but was reversed in 1887 by
the United States supreme court on a
question of pleadings, not touching the
merits of the case. The case was after
ward heard on evidence and pleadings
before Justice Brewer December, 1888,
Brewer deciding against Farley. 1t was
on the appeal from this decision that the
supreme court of the United States has
now decided that there was no agree
ment made under which Farley was en-
titled TO the relief demanded.
Fariey's suit was commenced by Du-
buque attorneys, Senator Davis repre-
sentlng them for time, and host OF
others have been in it or around it; but
the attorneys for Farley who argued the
case i'll the United States supreme
court were Senator George F. Ed
munds, of Vermont. and Beam & Cook,
OF Chicago. Argument was made in
behalf of the defense by Judge Young,
OF st. Paul. directly representing Mr..
Hill. and j. NJ. Harlan, of Chi
cago. representing the Kittson estate,
and M. D. Grover, solicitor of the Great
Northern (the successor of the Man-
itoba), representing that company and
Mr.. Hill's interest.
Farley'S testimony was clear, direct
and positive as to his agreement with
The members of the Manitoba syndicate.
and he was supported by o.her proof:
but the defense brought documentary
proof against point after point in his
evidence until 1t was shown as to
each in detail that it could not be true,
and the court sustained the proposition
that he had failed to establish any legal
or equitable claim for a division. with
out passing upon the stronger point,
made by the defense, that it was impos.
slble for him to maintain the relations
| claimed while representing the court as
one OF its officers in connection with the
management Of the property in ques-
ton.
AIR EaplaU nj aI fJ,ok ha
consulted with the Dutch bondholders
before joining i'll the deal, and that they
assented to his pursuing that course.
Notwithstanding he was acting for them
as receiver anu manager.
Judge Brewer seemedto take issue
with this position, for in rendering his
decision in the lower court he said:
Il think MIR. Farley as a receiver did
| not fail in his official duty, and. although
| such conclusion carries an lmputation
| upon his recollection or veracity as a
witness. it sustains his integrity as an
| officer"
THE-KITTsGN ESTATE.
Harvey Officer, attorney for the ST.
Paul Trust company. which is the ex-
ecutor of the Commodore Kittson es-
tate, said yesterday that he expected
the mandate from the supreme court of
the United States would reach the
! United States circuit court here in
about two or three weeks. This man.
date will be an affirmation of the decree
in the circuit court. Within week
after that time the trust company will
be ready to make its final accounting to
the probate court in this city, with a
| ytaxxr Of tr1r hn afnt ho
heirs and trustee under the will. The
trust company had petitioned in 1891
for leave to distribute the estate, but
application was denied In turn by the
probate court, the district court. the
supreme court of the state, and the
/ United States supreme court. TO some
of the heirs the distribution of their
shares will be made direct; as to others,
some of the estate will he held in trust
for their benefit, according to the pro-
visions of the will. AT the time of the
appraisal of the estate, in 1888. the in
ventory showed the total assets to be
81, 734. .S1S.64. The larger part of this
was in bonds and personal property.
Since then there have been some &C
cumulations that largely enhance the
value of the estate.
AN INCIDENT IN THE CASE.
One of the incidents in the case is the
fact that if Commodore Kittson had
lived few days longer he would proba-
bly, have settled with Mr. Farley and
relieved his estate. The commodore
was advanced in years and in infirm
Health. He had made an elaborate will
disposing of his great property, and de-
sired to feel that he had put his
house thoroughly in order. While not
conceding that Mr.. Farley had any just
claim, he preferred to give large sum,
which had been agreed upon, to be re-
lieved from the harassing suit. 1t is
generally understood that the amount
was to be 100000. He was returning
from New York to meet MIR. Farley in
st. Paul to make the settlement on the
18th of May, 1888. 1t will-be remem.
bered that he died on the cars on the
evening of the 18th. soon after taking
the train at Chicago for st. Paul. Had
he lived one day longer his estate would
have been relieved of the litigation. and
Mr.. Hill would have been the single
defendant.