St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-30
Mr.. ROGERS EXPLAINS !. / /
The Suit Of Mary M. Rogers
VS.. London s. Northwest
Company.
THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
Mr.. Rogers Has No Litigation
With Any One at the
Present Time.
EFFECT OF THE HARD TINES
On the Value Of Real Estate
A Transaction Said to Be
Legitimate.
EFFECT OF THE HARD TINE;

own will state to you for publica-
ton the exact facts in the case:
In July. 1887, l was the owner in fee
simple of all Of G. V. Bacon's addition.
except three blocks "A. and 10y; these
three blocks had conveyed to other
parties. or they were under contract for
conveyance. At that time l was worth.
over and above all my liability. at the
current valuation of real estate in
ST. Paul. large amount OF money.
There had been mortgage on this
property, but 1 paid the same in
the spring of 1887, and more than ten
thousand dollars of that money had
come from the sale of my homestead on
Dayton avenue. Myself and wife were
then contemplating a trip i'll the win
ter, which we subsequently took. |
thought it no more than proper that l
should deed the remaining unsold por-
ton of q. Y. BacOn's addition to my
wife, as had used the money de rived
from the sale of the homestead to pay
the mortgage upon that property; and,
being absolutely solvent. had an un-
questioned right to do with my props
erty as l saw tit. do not owe dollar
of indebtedness now which l owed i'll
1887. In November. 1889, l borrowed
American Mortgage company. This
money was loaned to me and used in
my business, and was secured by a
mortgage upon individual property of
mine. and also upon this property which
had decided to my wife, and which
property so decided to her has always
stood in her name on the
Records Of Ramsey County,
and always belonged to her ever since
the time it was decided to her in 1887. 1t
was we'll known TO the London Il North.
west American Mortgage company at the
time of this loan that this Il. Y. Bacon
addition property belonged to Mrs.
Rogers, and that she was in no wise
personally responsible for the loan.
have paid upon the principal al differ
ent times $4,000, and interest and taxes
up to about year ago. have i'll my
possession the original report OH the
title to the G. V. Bacon addition prop.
erty made by Mr.. Foot, the attorney of
the company, in which he states that
the title to the property is in Mrs. Roy
erS.
By mistake and inadvertance there
was provision inserted in tine mort
gage which, under late decisions of our
Supreme.court,w would make Mrs. Rogers
other individuaI property liable for any
deficiency which might arise on the
sale of the mOrtgaged premises. In
June. 1892, the mortgage debt not being
due, the agents of the London &
Northwest American Mortgage com
pany, being very anxious to raise money
to roy the interest on their bonds,
agrt with me to extend the payment
of the debt for one year from the date
of maturity, provided l would accom-
modate them by the payment OF $4,000,
which l did; and the time of payment
was so extended. There was no thought
at that time by myself as to the effect
Oh the status of the surety, Mrs. Rogers,
and her property by this extension,
without obtaining her consent to it.
The company had also a mortgage OH
the property of a client of mine, and
suit. was instituted to collect said mort
gage, and in the winter and spring Of
1894 was employed to act as attorney
for said client. 1t seemed to anger the
agent of the company, Mr.. Paget, that
| should have presumed to interpose an
answer, or to do any business for said
| client in their suit against him; and
| said agent commenced at once an action
| against me to collect balance of
Unpaid Interest.
| went TO see the agent, Mr.. Paget,
and. not finding him in, l consulted his
| attorney, aud inquired of him what he
| meant by the suit. and whether he in
| tended to push the foreclosure of the
mortgage which and my wife had given
| to the company. He replied that he had
no definite instructions to that effect, but
| that such was fair inference. Previous
| to this time my wife had consulted Mr.,
| Horn as to her right in the premises,
and after this suit against me was
brought my wife again consulted MIR.
Horn, and he advised her that she ought
| to institute suit to reform the mort.
| gage as 10 the point above stated, and
| also to have the same declared not a
| lien upon her property, because she, as
a surety, had been discharged by the
| extension as aforesaid. He also advised
| her that if she waited longer to insti.
| tute the action her rights might be
| affected by such delay.
| | have no suit with the COMPANY
whatever at the present time; l have
| never denied the Indebtedness, neither
have they ever sued me for it, except as
| above, and | intend and expect to nav
| them every dollar that l owe them.
| But my wife, when she was apprised OF
her rights by her counsel, was unwill.
| ing that her property should be sacri-
| feed. as it certainly would have been
| under foreclosure during our present
depression. If her property could have
been sold at fair value, | have ne
doubt but that she would have will.
inRly disposed of Su fficient part OF il
toward paying this mortgage. For m,
| part, prefer to trust the good judg
| medt and honest conviction of nv wife
to do justice to the company. rathe
than the desire of The company to
Do Justice to Her.
To express it more plainly, as long a.
| Mrs. Rogers holds the reins, she pre-
fors to direct, instead of allowing Mr.
Paget to direct.
have lived in this city nearly twenty
eight years, and have handled hundred
of thousands of dollars of the money O
the citizens of st. Paul and non-resi
dents, and never was sued during m,
residence here. for a debt. until l wa
sued by this company to collect Dor
ton of the interest which owed them
and which suit was grounded in spit
and entirely unnecessary. The de
pressed times have, as every one knows
rendered it absolutely impossible to sci
real estate in st. Paul at any price; an,
Of course those persons. who, ownin,
real estate, owe money on it. are almos
at the mercy of their creditors. If an,
one thinks 1t is the duty of a surety
when she has an absolutely lega
defense to an action. to submit
her property to be sacrificed dur
ing these times, then their ideas O
equity and justice are not mine. Tha
is a question. however. which must b.
left to each individual. and my wifi