St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-01
THERE WIS FRAUD
AND HENCE CHIEF JUSTICE c. j.
START REVERSES THE
LOWER COURT.
"A MANS WIFE C0NSPIRED
WITH OTHER INTERESTED PAR
TIES TO DIVEST HIM OF
HIS LAND.
A BRIEF, POINTED SYLLABUS.
"A MANS WIFE CoNsPIRED
A BRIEF, POINTED SYLLABUS.
Rather Involved Deal in Merchan-
disc Was Correctly Settled
by the Court Below.

Cn1eI justice start handed down
two decisions yesterday, in one of
which the lower court was sustained
and in the other reversed.
In the case reversed, that of Dom
ahue, appellant, VS.. Quackenbush,
respondent, the allegations of the
complaint, which are recited in the
opinion of the court. indicate that
fraud was a large factor in the mat
terS which gave rise to the litiga-
ton. 1t appears thereby that on
April 80, 1886, the plaintiff appellant
was owner in fee of the tract of
land described in the complaint, the
same being his farm. That on that
day judgment was rendered against
him in an action brought by his
wife for limited divorce, whereby he
was directed to pay her as alimony
$500 a year, which sum was made
a specific lien on the land. Dona-
hue defaulted in the payment of the
alimony, and August r. Doescher
was appointed by the court as re-
ceiver of the property, with direc-
lions to care for the same and apply
the rents and issues towards pay
ment of the divorced wife's claim.
Doescher accepted the trust, and en-
tered upon the discharge of his
duties as receiver. taking charge
and possession of Donahue's prop
erty, including the land in contro-
VerSy in the action.
Later on Donahue, by reason Of
mental weakness and incompetency,
became unable to work or earn any
money to discharge the obligations
laid upon him, and had neither
means nor capacity to care for his
property. The complaint further
states that at this time the receiver,
Doescher and Donahue's wife and
Quackenbush conspired and agreed
together to deprive the plaintiff,
Donahue, of the land in suit. For
this purpose the defendant Quack-
enbuSh procured an assignment of a
judgment for $235.20, held by one
Hart against Donahue, caused eXecu-
ton to be issued and the land in
question to be sold under it, Doescher
becoming the purchaser at the exc
cution sale. Thereafter Doescher
and his wife conveyed the land to
Quackenbush by quit claim deed for
$3.50, the land being then worth $4,000
1t is held by the court that Donahue,
by reason of his trusteeship, was
not qualified to become a purchaser
as against the interest Of Donahue;
that Quackenbush was not a bona
fide purchaser, and that the statute
of limitations which had been plead
ed by the defendant would not COM
mence to run until the trustee Does
cher gave up and repudiated his
trust. The appellant Donahue is sus-
tanned by the decision, the syllabus
of which follows:
Timothy Donohue, appellant, VS.. Liv-
tngStone QuackenbuSh, respondent.
A receiver, appointed after judgment,
in an action for a divorce, took pos
session of all of the property of the
defendant therein, with power to con-
troll the same, receive the rents and
profits thereof and apply them in pay
ment Of alimony, purchased in his own
name land so in his possession as
receiver at an execution sale thereof.
Held, that whatever title he acquired
by such sale, he held it in trust for
such defendant and that the statute
did not commence to run against an
action to enforce the trust until he
repudiated it by conveying the land
as his own. Order reversed. Start, c.
J.
MOTION PROPERLY DENIED.
In the other case the gist of the
matter in litigation sufficiently appears
in the decision which follows:
William E. Iselin, Alfred Vondermuhl
and James w. Cromwell, respondents,
VS.. Sigmupd Simon ct al, defendants,
Charles Schener, appellant, Duluth Dry
Goods company, garnishee. William E.
Iselin ct al, respondents, VS.. Sigmund
Simon and Isaac Mondelshon, appel
lants.
l. The complaint alleges that the
plaintiffs at the request of the de-
sndants sold and deIfvered to them
FOODS Of the reasonable value of 81, 232,
which sum they agreed to pay there
for, and have not. The answer was q
general denial. Held that the defense,
that the goods were sold on credit, the
term whereof had not expired when
she action was commenced, was new
natter, which should have been spe-
)ially pleaded.
g After the trial of the main action
and findings by the court and order for
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.
the defendants and interviewer moved
the court to dismiss the garnishee pro-
ceedinSs herein because the action was
prematurely brought.
Held, that their motions were prop
erly denied. Orders affirmed. Start,
g. J.