The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-29


party which stands on platform of
Il am nobler than thou with a quail
lying clause of anything to help the
Republicans" should have been SO I'M
fortunate in its choice of candidates
The G o e yesterday exposed a
dark chapter in the career of ]. A
Iemple, one of its nominees for the
| supreme court bench. 1t would be
possible, perhaps, for such a character
TO slip into the ticket of any party,
| but 1t is strange, to say the least. that
party which is and has been under
just suspicion of having been a tool
OF republican machinists, should de-
ilherately nominate two men for the
peIch or the supreme court whose pri-
Vate and professional dealings have
met with the cOndemna ton of the law
! as expressed in the final judgments of
the states highest tribunal, to which
they now aspire.
Inc violation of confidence which re-
suited in Temple being disbarred for
SIX months finds, prOpably, no uncon-
genial company in the record of
IWltchell, which singularly enough Is
! revealed in the identical volume Of the
Minnesota Reports which contains the
| revelation Of Temples duplicity.
IWltchell is the name of this other
| uncertain character, a Minneapolis
real estate Spectator, according to the
records of the supreme court and one,
| 100 IN whose heart and mind the rela-
! 1--WE meanings of meum and tuum are
rot distinctly developed. The facts. as
ne u o b gets them from the rec
oros or the supreme court, are as fol-
lows:
May 70, 1885, the supreme court hand
cd down decision in the suit of John
I. .HOdge VS. Edgar A. TwitcheH and
wife.
According to Minnesota Reports. vol.
50, p. 800, Hodge brought the action
70 nave the conveyance to defendant
lara 5. TWftchell, of the north fifty
feet Of the lot described declared fraud
ulent as to the plaintiff and asking
that she be declared to hold the title
to an undivided one-third thereon IN
trust for the plaintiff The case was
trleo before Judge Lochren and judg-
hlent directed for plaintiff. The ap-
peal was on refusing a new trial.
Nhlef Justice Gilfilan, writing the
opinion, said:
The findings of fart of +bo oo,,n. -
dfr DIS tney are essential to the determination
Oh Oh the case, are justified by the evidence. Tha
lacts are substantially these:
ant III E Sddnua1y 1883, the plaintiff, the defend
ans EdWard y. Twitchell and one Rohv
agreed that they would make joint purchases
Oh real estate in the city of MINNEAPOLIS. each
+u1 neSht Jug an equal amount of purchase
money 1or the venture; and that on a sale of
any piece purchased they would divide canal
~ the profits of the venture In tba 800
month said defendant called the attention. ~
the other two to lot which was offered for
eaIe az SZ,o0o, and advised them that the lot
was cheap and advisable property to nurchase
On on 9o1nt account pursuant to said agreement.
Wnlle the two were considering the matter
IL was agreed between the persons offerinf
the lot for sale and the defendant that if he
would nnd purchaser Of the remainder of
the lot at said price, they would in considera-
zion thereof convey the north fifty feet front
ana rear OF the lot to him or to any one he
should designate. Thereupon he, purposeiy
concealing from plaintiff and Roby the agree
ment that he had made with the parties offer
Ing the lot for sale, misrepresented to them
that the north fifty feet front and rear of the
that 1t could not be purchased by the three.
and informed them that the remainder of the
lot could still be purchased and at said price
of $500, and advised them to make such
purchase, and on his recommendation It Yas
made, each Of the three paying one-third Of
the purchase price, and the lot was conveyed
to the three, and at the request Of the
sad defendant, the persons offering the lot
for sale conveyed, pursuant to their agree
ment with him. the said north fifty feet to
the defendant Clara S. Twitchell she paving
no consideration therefor but being ignorant
of the means by which he procured the same
to be conveyed to her. Plaintiff had no
knowledge until after the venture was closed
by sale of the remainder of the lat, that
said Edgar A. had by the transaction secured
to himself any advantage In which the others
did not share. The value of said north 30 toet
is 81, 800.
1.-The relation of the parties with respect to
any venture they might enter upon pursuant
to their agreement was in the nature Of a
partnership. Each owed to the others in such
their transactions, the utmost good faith and
openness of dealing. Neither had the right
to secure without the consent of the others
any private advantage to himself out OF such
transactions, either in making the purchases
or the sales, either from the money Jointly
contributed, or from the property purchased.
Securing such advantage would be a fraud
upon the other members interested with him.
which equity would defeat by holding him
a trustee for the others of the thing which
he SO secured to himself There is no
principle Of equity jurisprudence better estah-
lished more vigorously enforced than this
In this case the real consideration for the lot
was the $500; the thing really purchased
as between Edgar A. and the seller, with that
money, the entire lot. 1t was the con-
sideration for the part conveyed to Clara g.
az much as 1t was for the other. The thin
device resorted to, Of calling the conveyance
of the north fifty feet payment for services
rendered the seller in procuring purchaser,
when he had no right to render such services
| to the seller-for that would place him in
position where his bias and interest would
| be inconsistent with the duty which he owed
| to his associates, to do the best he could for
| their common good-did not change the real
| character of the transaction. 1t was fraud
upon his associates, by reason of which, If
| that part Of the lot had been conveyed to
| him, equity would have treated him as hold
| ing it in trust for them to the extent of their
| agreed interest IN the venture. The de-
| 160OanC, clara D., having palQ no cOnSlQera-
! ton for the conveyance to her, holds it, as
! he would have done, subject to the same
| trust Order affirmed
If these men had been nominated in
| the excitement Of a popular conven
ton, there might be some excuse for
, the breaking into public light of two
| such candidates for the popular vote.
| But, when it is taken into account
| that both these men were named after
the convention, in the sober delibera-
| tons of managing committee Of a
i rump convention party, the evident
! determination to thrust forward con-
| scienceless men who would fly at their
masthead the banner of such party
in the hope of diverting some honest
vote from it's natural inclination, there
| is left no conclusion but that the man
aging committee of the md-road Pop
ulists Is actuated, not by a desire for
reform, social, moral or political, but
Is solely and entirely In politics for
what there is to be made out of it,
playing into the hands of the Repub-
! leans by such measly efforts to split
the vote of those honest reformers
who realize the depths to which the
Republican party has descended and
who know that a cure can only be
found in the intelligent cooperation
/ ~