St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-28
ROGERS IS ROASTED.
Story of His Big Loan on a
Piece Of St. Paul Real
Estate.
SUIT WITH HIS CREDITOR,
Whom. 1t Is Alleged, He Has
Attempted to Deprive Of
Some Security.
THE CASE IN THE COURTS.
SAYS in an Affidavit His Wife
Was the Owner of the
Property.

clerk of the district court on the ground
that he is the most tit and capaDle man,
and one of the best qualified. both by
experience and personal character, to
fill that important office. In connection
with this claim it will be interesting to
the voters of Ramsey county to COIL
slider the following facts. which appear
of record in the Office of the clerk of
the district court for Ramsey county, in
the office of the register of deeds for
Ramsey county, and also in the United
States circuit court for the district of
Minnesota.
Every fact herein stated can be yer.
flied by any person so desiring. by ex-
animation of the records in said Offices.
In the year 1886. as appears from the
records in the office of register of deeds
of Ramsey county. Edward &. Rogers
purchased portion of what is known
as Lees Suburban Homes. paying
therefor consideration of s35. TAO. Civ
Ing back to the vendors the purchase
none mortgage at $4,000. This pur-
chase money mortgage was paid by Mr..
Rogers in 1887. In 1856 Mr.. Rogers sold
all undivided one-half of this property
for the sum of 5000. and few months
later repurchased the same undivided
one-half for the sum Of $4,000. The
foregoing facts are given for the pur-
pose of showing the valuation placed
upon the prope rty by the parties inter
ested therein. The above mentioned
property was, in the year 1856,
Subdivided and Plated
in the addition known as q. V. Bacon's
Addition to st. Paul, the same consist
ing of sixteen blocks. On July 6. 1887,
Edward q. Rogers and Mary Nj. Rogers.
his wife, by aQuit-claim deed. conveyed
thirteen of the sixteen blocks comprised
in q. V. Bacon's addition to Emerson
Hadley, for a consideration of 81, 900.
the same day, to wit. July 6. 1887. Elmer
son Hadley conveyed the same premises
TO Mary NJ. Rogers, the wife of Edward
&. Rogers, for all express consideration
of 81. 600. On the 1st day of November,
1889. it appears by the records in the
Office of the register of deeds of Ramsey
county that E. q. Rogers made loan
of the London and Northwest American
Mortgage company. limited, to the
amount of 10000. and as security for
said loan the said Edward e. Rogers
and Mary A. Rogers, his wife, executed
to the said mortgage company mort
gage for the sum of 100000, dated the
1st day of November. 1889. said sum
being payable three years after date,
with interest at the rate of s per cent
per annum, payable semi-annually. The
mortgage recited that it was given to
secure note executed by the said Ed
ward G. Rogers. The mortgage COW
cred the thirteen blocks in &. V.
BacOn'S addition above mentioned, and
also included some other property. So
much for what appears upon the Official
records to be found IN the Office of the
register of deeds of Ramsey county.
Turning Now to the Records.
in the office of tie clerk of the district
court, there will he found an action,
being file No. 5000, entitled Mary NJ.
Rogers, plaintiff. vs.. The London &
Northwestern American Mortgage Com
pany. Limited. ct al, which suit was
filed Oh the eighth day of May. 1894 .
The complaint in this action recites that
the plaintiff is the wife of Edward G.
Rogers. 1t further recites that on the
first day of November. 1889, she was,
and had been for more than two years
prior thereto. the sole owner in fee
simple of the aforementioned thir-
teen blocks in G. V. Bacon's addi-
ton. That at the instance and
request OF her said husband. Edward
q. Rogers. she did, on the 1st day of
| November. 1889, join with Edward q.
| Rogers in the above mentioned mort-
gage to the London IL Northwe stern
American Mortgage Company, limited,
tor $4,000. That the said mortgage was
| given to secure the individual note OF
the said Edward G. Rogers mentioned
in said mortgage and that the sum of
$4,000, for which said note and mort
gage were given, was a loan of that
| amount Of money by said defendant cor
| poration to SAID Edward Il. Rogers i'll
divldually. for his use in the business
| Of said Edward G. Rogers, and
no part or portion thereof was
| borrowed to he used in the
| business of this plaintiff. or for the use
or.advantage of the plaintiff; and that no
part OF said money was ever used in the
business of or for the use, benefit or adj
vantage of the plaintiff. Of all of which
facts the plaintiff claims the defendant
corporation had full knowledge. Plaint-
| if further claims that i'll executing and
| signing said mOrtage her purpose and
intention was that her said property
should become and be merely surety,
and that the said property did then and
1
! payment of the said note of her hus-
band. Edward g. Rogers.
The Baby Act.
The plaintiff then alleges that on the
| 18th day of June, 1892, the defendant
mortgage company, without tine knowl-
| edge or consent Of Mrs Rogers, made
| ward u. Rogers, to extend the time of
| payment of said note and mortgage for
| "A period of one year from the time the
| same was to become due. to wit, Nov. /,
| 1892. and that as consideration for such
| agreement for extension Edward G.
| Rogers paid the sum of $4,000 on &C
| count Of the principal Indebtedness to-
| gether with accrued interest, leaving a
balance of S25, 600 OH the mOrtgaged in
| debtedness, IS. 600 having been previous
| ly paid. Mrs. Rogers further claims in
| her complaint that the mortgage CON-
| pany at the time OF making such agree
ment of extens sion had full knowledge
| and notice that she had signed the
! mortgage merely as surety for her hus-
| band. She further complains that the
defendant and its agent threatened to
| fOreclose the mortgage, claiming that it
| is valid lien on the property, and that
| by such foreclosure she would be
| greatly damaged: therefore. she asks
The aid of the court. and prays for de-
cree declaring that the said thirteen
blocks in G. V. Bacon's addition, ex-
| cepting certain portions thereof as had
been previously released from said
| mortgage by the mortgage company, to
be free from the lien and operation of
said mortgage, and not in any way sub
! ject thereto or affected by the claim of
| the defendant corporation. and that the
-nI ,nrfr /,
| erty to be declared null and void.
Evidently, in order to make the mat
ter more binding, and to leave no doubt
as to the character of the transaction,
there is attached to the complaint and
made part of the same ali affidavit
made by Edward &. Rogers, the nus.
band OF The plaintiff, OF which the fol-
! lowing is copy:
| The Affidavit