The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-26
WANTS A NEW HEARING.
Life Insurance Clearing Company to
the Supreme Court

The Life Insurance Clearing company
through Mum & Thygeson, its attorneys
has filed with the clerk of the supreme
court a petition for a reargument of the suit
brought against it by the St. Paul National
bank, which was decided in the plaintiffs
favor Justice Mitchell. while concurring in
the decision generally filed a separate opin-
ion, while Justice CAVITY dissented from the
decision. The petitioners plead that manifest
error has been committed as follows
That the decision is based upon the fact
that at or prior to the time the stock in
question was pledged to the appellant the
respondent made no claim of lien against
1t. and that therefore the lien was waived
which conclusion respondent respectfully sub
mits is unsound In law and contrary to the
decisions OF this court, and many other courts
of last resort.
clslon and given as a and ground
therefor, that IL the respondent accepted the
notes and mortgages in payment of the cap
ital stock, it waived its lien on the stock, is
unsound In law and not applicable to this
case.
That the courts conclusion upon which
said decision is based, that the respondent
parted with it's own securities in favor of
the defendant without the slightest knowledge
or suspicion that it was obtaining the stock
of defendant, loaded down with lien for
DORIS debts to it," is not only unsound in
law. but is at variance with the actual
knowledge which the appellant had of Dorr's
Indebtedness to respondent and which actual
knowledge IS found by both this and the
lower court to exist
There is error in said decision because the
evidence shows that appellant voluntarily
parted with its security to Dorr, without CON
sultation or privity with respondent or with
OUT imposing any condition upon Dorr or
said respondent. and released It's mortgages
long prior to the issuance Of the stock tn
Dorr;, as well as to the pledging of it to the
appellant.
There is error In said decision because the
mere silence Of the respondent when the
appellant had both actual and constructive
notlce OF the lien, cannot be construed as
waiver, and the conclusion of the court in
holding it to be such is unsound in law
There is error in said decision because the
lower court found as fact that respondent
had not waived its said lien, which finding
is unexcepted to, and there being evidence
to support such finding and no application
having been made to annul the same it should
be allowed to stand in this court
In support of these contentious the coun-
sci cite number of cases, among them one
so recent as the one of Dorr against the
Clearing company, involving another turn in
1T seems manifest that the court over
looked undisputed facts in deciding that the
appellant took the stock without the slightest
ing the stock of defendant loaded down with
lien for DORIS lebts to it,
The brief concludes:
In conclusion we wish to say that this de-
cision,. If allowed to stand. is going to be
very far-reaching and will necessarily rem
der very uncertain that which has always
been considered by the bar as certain. If
an ofncer OF corporation, acting in his own
interest can make an arrangement with one
OF his creditors by which the corporate lien
can be waived or rendered uncertain. without
any authority from the corporation and with
out the bylaws giving him any such author
ity so to do, there Is very little value left
will be largely defeated.
We beg to assure the court that we make
this petition in no caviling spirit but solely
to protect the interests of our client to the
fullest extent, as we deem it our bounden
duty to do. and in the hope and firm belief
that upon further consideration of this case
the court will see the correctness Of our
contention.