The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-08-23

plaintiff and his wife, the testimony |
of physician who prescribed for him
in the afternoon Is relied on. There |
is no suggestion of any occasion for
this witness recalling the exact condi-
ton in which the plaintiff then was
until three or more years thereafter.
This witness also testified as an ex-
pert on behalf of the plaintiff, giving
as his opinion that the plaintiff was on
the 18th of January, and prior there
to, incompetent to transact business.
IT. is possible that the lapse of time
and the opinion advanced by the wit
ness may have tended to emphasize !
somewhat unduly in his mind some |
phases Of the condition of the plaintiff
that would tend to sustain his theory.
Certainly the condition Of profound
collapse described by the physician in
the afternoon is inconsistent with the
testimony Of the officers of the Shev-
spoke to the plaintiff during the fore
noon and noticed nothing unusual in
his appearance or condition.
AS to the relationship of the parties:
The plaintiff and defendant are
brothers; the plaintiff being fifteen
having for considerable intervals Of
time lived at the house of the defend
ant as member of his family. This
relationship and difference in the ages
Of these brothers loses much Of it's
Importance, however, when we con-
slider that the younger brother had at
the time of this transaction arrived at
the age of thirty-three years. It is also
true that the plaintiff the younger
brother, had been for many years in
tn employ Of companies managed by
the defendant and have been accus-
toned in such employment to defer to
the wishes and directions Of the de-
PENDANT. But this condition, if it in
| dicates anything different from the
ordinary relation of employer and en-
ployee, also loses much of it's i'm
portance when we consider that at
the time this transfer was made, the
plaintiff was himself a man of large
business experience, and that he had
for nearly two years been in the po-
sition of local manager of two large
companies; and in such positions and
from such experience had become ha-
| dependent Judgment upon matters Of
| imp Ortance.
The evidence in this case fairly con-
sldered shows the plaintiff at this time
to have been a man Of mature years,
of a quick, active mind possessing
confidence in himself, persistent and
Tenacious; man Of rather unusual
business capacity; and a man who, had
had an unusually active business ex-
perience, and experience Of the kind
that would tend to make him self-re-
liant and se1f-confident. His business
for seven or eight years was primarily
that Of a trader. He was engaged as
travelling salesman in selling lumber
for upwards of five years. In this &C.
cupation he was brought in competi-
ton with other statesmen, and was
very successful; obtained good prices
and sold large amounts of lumber
AS manager Of the Crookston and St
Hilaire Lumber companies he reorgan.
lied the business; aided materially ir
making it successful and extremely
profitable.
Equity is commonly called upon tc
protect either the young or inexperi.
| enced, or the old with impaired facul
ties, but here we find a man Of un.
usual ability and unusual experience
; in transactions ct the same genera
character as the transaction involved
. here, the selling of an interest in E
lumber business.
In all the many business transac.
tons that this man was engaged in
right down to the time Of this trans.
fer there is no suggestion of i'm.
. provident contracts, or the lack OF
, ability to determine what was for his
interests and the interests of the com
panies he represented.
7 Force has been laid upon the fac
| that the defendant requested the
| resignation Of the plaintiff as mana
ger Of these companies a short time
: prior to the making Of this transfer
J as showing a lack Of capacity on tn,
: part Of plaintiff to protect himself il
: the transfer in question.
) It is apparent, however, that a maj
: may be undesirable as the continue
: manager of an extensive business be
!. cause of periods Of intoxication, Will
1 he is still entirely capable of exer
r cising the greatest business ability il
;, transactions while he is sober. TIL
r drinking on the part of the plaintiff
y while it had extended over a long pc
Rod, and seemed to have become
t fixed habit which the plaintiff wa
e unable to free himself from entirely
: clearly had not impaired his abilit
3. to transact business. The plainti1
n and the defendant and the other of
: ficers Of the companies managed b
b the plaintiff all unite and agree i
characterizing his management Q
), these companies as unusually efhcien
d and able, right up to the time Of thi
d transfer.
One other established fact in thi
l. case is urged as showing a lack {
It capacity upon the part of the plain
p tiff, and a recognized relationship {
1t trust and responsibility between tn
e plaintiff and the defendant, and the
IS is the clause in the agreement {
j. Jan. Is, 1900, providing that if tn
4
IF ness, subject to the approval Of tn
: defendant, the defendant agreed I
a pay the plaintiff the balance due hi
l. at that time.
le This clause does certainly show thu
e. the defendant at that time was assun
Us ing to exercise some care for the fl
is ture Of the plaintiff. The clause
r outside Of lines OF purely busine
le transactions, and was very unique
at tionably prompted by regard fl
CT the future Of the plaintiff. Fairly col
&c sidered, however, it does not, to m
e mind, tend to establish either ar
lack Of capacity or resulting depend
rs ency in a business transaction viii
Of the plaintiff was not under the infl
ly ence of liquor, or that the defendal
ne at that time believed that the plai1
s. tiff was then unable to transact bus
mes when he was free from the Il
ne f1uence Of liquor, but does fairly su
of tain the explanation made by the
en- fendant himself, that he was Apr
rs hensive that the plaintiff might en-
~ bark in some unwise business ente
ge prise while he was drinking.
ne The plaintiff transferred to the
at PENDANT one-tenth interest in Il
10 Crookston and st. Hilaire Lumb
companies, for consideration
q $4,000.
II 1t is claimed by the plaintiff tn
~ this consideration is grossly mad
&c quate.
81 Whether the price agreed upon
~ ~ this transfer bore fair relation
~ the value of the stock, enters into t
CD, a nF oil Ia Q