The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-11
G. |. ACCOUNT
IS ALLOWED
The Minneapolis Trust Co.
Wins in the Supreme
Court. =
This Ends Litigation Which
Has Extended Through
Seven Years.

The Minneapolis Trust company wins
the West Pullman bond case, and it's ac-
count as receiver of the Northwestern
Guaranty Loan company has been finally
allowed. The supreme court handed
down decision to-day, affirming the or-
der OF Judge Cray, and overruling all obs
1ections to the allowance of the account.
This is the third time the supreme court
has passed upon the case, and it closes
seven-year's litigation of tremendous
expense, and many interesting features.
The Minneapolis Trust company was ap-
pointed receiver Dec. s, 1894. In handling
the assets, Charles M. Hamblin. secre-
tary OF the company, negotiated a sale of
$295,O0O in bonds of the West Pullman
Improvement company of Chicago to a
Boston syndicate for 10 cents on the dol
lar. This sale was authorized by de-
cree of the district court March S, 1895.
signed by Judge R. D. Russell.
Several of the creditors objected to the
sale year later and asserted that the
bonds would have realized 60 cents on
the dollar. For some caustic comment on
the transaction the official of the company
secured the indictment of the Mime
apolis Times for criminal libel, and also
OF John Blanchard, editor, and w. Ee
Haskell, manager. The case against w.
E. Haskell was tried lasting seven weeks
and introducing flood of testimony re-
gardlng the sale of the bonds. The ver-
dict was acquittal and the other indict-
ments were nolled
Inc trustee presented a report Jan. 10,
1896. The La Sale National bank. the
First National Bank of Athens, Pa, the
Bank of Lanesboro, Mimi, and other
creditors objected to the allowance of the
account They insisted that the receiver
should be charged with the face value of
the West Pullman bonds with interest.
amounting to $3O2,375, instead of the
$29,5O0 realized from the SALE. Judge Rus
sell on July 6, 1897, overruled the objec-
| lions, approved the account and ordered
Judgment for the trust company.
In February, 1885, the La Sale National
bank and John M. Norris as receiver for
Louis F. Menage moved that the order be
vacated The full bench denied the mo-
ZION. An appeal was taken and the dis
trlct court sustained in an opinion by
Judge Mitchell, handed down July %, 1898.
The court held that if new evidence was
obta1nable it should be introduced do
novo, and a new trial was ordered.
/! Judge Otis of St. Paul presided at this
trial, and found that the bonds were
| worth at the time of sale sSs, 500, and the
trustees should have been charged with
that amount. The trust company APP
pealed, and the supreme court in an
opinion by Judge Lewis. Aug. s, 1900, re-
versed the decision and ordered new
trial, Chief Justice Start dissenting. The
! majority held that the evidence did not
show the bonds to have been sold for less
| than their value, and this court could not
agree as to bad faith or otherwise.
At the new trial, Judge Lorin Cray Of
Mankato presided, and his decision ap-
proved the trustees account. The de-
PENDANTS appealed, but the opinion of the
court given to-day sustains the order. It
is written by Judge Lovely, who says:
We have given to the record, containing
over 400 pages of printed matter the most
thorough, careful and patient investigation,
and in determining this appeal we are COM
PEELED to hold that the order of the trial court
was not so palpably against the weight of
evidence tending to show that the sale of the
West Pullman bonds was characterized by
good faith and honesty as to justify our re-
versal of the order appealed from
The syllabus in the case is as follows:
Frst-ln ruling upon an interlocutory mo-
ton to set aside an order allowing a re-
ceiver's account in insolvency proceedings,
it is not necessary that specific findings OF
fact and law be separately stated by the
trial court.
Second-An order Of the trial court which
in effect allows d receivers account and re-
fuses to surcharge the same under claim that
such receiver was guilty. of positive bad faith
and fraud in the sale of trust property, in
wolves the conclusion of fact that the re-
ceiver's conduct was characterized by good
faith without more specific findings in that
respect
Third-Upon review of the evidence before
the trial court in this case, held that it
reasonably tends to support the essential con-
cluson reached therein that there was good
faith by the receiver in the sale of certain
trust property and that the account was
properly allowed.
Order affirmed.