The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-12-17

Thomas himself, as will presently APP
pear did not rely upon it, but had 9TH
er memoranda prepared TO estimate even
book values. The accounts of payments
for pine lands were kept at Crookston,
where Edwin had access to them; altho
it seems that one purchase Of timber
for over $780, 900 was not entered there
on until after the sale Of stock by Ed
win to Thomas was made. OF this prop
erty, he is not shown to have known
definite. According to the
answer the accounts, records and plats
of the standing timber were in Thomas
own possession and under his control
and supervision at Minneapolis. These
records Edwin never examined and no
knowledge Of their contents was suffi-
GENTLY shown to have come to him.
pine lands; but it did not avail to adj
wise him Of either their full extent or
of their value. In course of trial coun-
sci for the defendant disclaimed that
g Edwin Shevlin could have told the
number of feet of stumpage or the de-
scription of the different items in any
Of the ledger accounts kept under him.
1t was neither kept that way: neither
was supposed to show the description
or the estimated amount of timber. ~
Indeed the answer in part was: "De-
PENDANT specifically denies that he (the
defendant) at any time had or has ever
had either full or accurate knowledge
or means of knowledge as ITO the exact
quantity or value Of all of the prop
erty Of said. companies, or their timber
lands or stumpage.
Accordingly, that Thomas talked very
frequently with Edwin in regard to the
panies and of it's various purchases,
one of which was not contaminated, and
was always impressing upon him the adj
Instability of increasing pine stumpage
holdings, does not serve to attribute
knowledge of the value of the pine
lands actually purchased, to Edwin.
Conversations with other persons con-
apolis, communicated no precise infor
nation. Nor, does inference of knowl-
edge on Edwin s part follow from the
dubious and contradictory testimony OF
Thomas himself as to having, shown
Edwin, at the final conversation, pencil
memoranda of financial statements
showing totals of all assets and liabili-
examined, and which were not produced
on trial for inspection. Thomas did not
remember who made these memoranda;
he had no clear and distinct recOllec-
tion Of what it contained, and could not
reproduce the contents Of the writing.
There is much force in the argument OF
counsel for plaintiff: that if Edwin was
a man of such business capacity and
experience, and with character sc, per
sistent and tenacious as the court finds,
and had also so large and accurate a
knowledge of the business and of the
valuation of the property, and was SO
free from influence by the defendant,
as defendant 8 counsel claims, why did
he not stand out for at least the, full
value Of the stock, which he did not
wish to sell at all, when he was con,
a buyers? If the plaintiff knew the
value to be at least $4,000 when he
sold for $4,000 the defendant also
knew it when he bought for the last
named amount; that, in view Of the
relationship of the parties, inval1dates
! the transaction under all equity de-
cisions. ~ ~,
(3) The fact of the exercise of con-
troll dover Edwin by Thomas, during the
arrangement for and the signing of the
contract, affirmatively appears in the
| defendants own case. st ls4scertaln
2that Thomas wanted to buy and that
Edwin and his wife did not want to
sell, and that Thomas prevailed. To
overcome this resistance, Thomas ap'
and right toward him; insisted that il
would not be just for his brother te
continue to own one tenth interest IL
the business and have. the benefit Of
the fruits Of profits from his future
corners in the timber country and hi
other work. He reproached his en-
feeb1ed brother for having allowed
whiskey to get hold again and t Of haV ny
stock was Edwin absolute property
he represented his brothers, duty tt
transfer it to him because Of his broth
er's inability to carry out the terms o.
an agreement without existence IN law
He assured Edwin that he thought ant
his partner agreed with him IN think
ing that $4,000. was a far value 10:
the stock. Plaintiff sought and re
at the time guest in his brother
Eome. He begged his brother to keel
the whole matter from the knowledge
Of their mother. Mrs. Thomas .shev
lin, who conducted herself admlrabl,
in these most embarrassing OF slt4 S
tions expressed her regret, that r.
could not keep his stock. - The 1U SAL 4
Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall said IL
H2 HRS t VS. HanaE II these whea deeds 49,
obtained fi BY the exercise of undue in
Anence over a man whose mind i;a'
LEASED to be the safe guide OF his &c
tons. it is against conscience Tor nh
who has obtained them to derive an an:
advantage from them. AND see Allor
) vs.. Jewell, "a U. S. 500.
)(4)@> The relation existing betWee;
the parties, the plaintiffs financial SIT
nation and physical and mental conan
tion at the time, and his knowledge
assets and the defendant 9 own verso
Of the exercise Of his influence, make
clear that the parties did not deal :. @
enual terms, or cat arms length,
!. !. az az those expressions are used in equit
? cases and threw on defendant the bu1
den of establishing that no undue &C
: vantage had been taken by him; tina
no profit was sought or derived by MN
but that, on the contrary, the transae
; ton was Just and fair and the cons1de1
alton was adequate and EQUITABLE. Ds
} Wis VS.. Dean. 66 Wis, 100; Bdrdsong'vs
, Birdsong, 2 Head. (Tenn: 2y9: More-v'
: More. IS Pac., lO44 (Cal.) This conclt
sion would follow on the deten!ant
theory that the price was considere
, at The preliminary consultation abou
Ian 5 or 6, for the equitable primo
,, nles are applied to cases OF unfair &C
Vantage when negotiations began an
the final transactions were agreed I
some time before their final consumm:
5 lion Lmdington VS.. Patton, SO n. W
XII: Huguinen VS.. Basely, IA Yes, 47s
Dunn VS.. Dunn, AZ n. j., eq. S42; ASH
, ton VS.. Thompson. 80 MINI, %; Brook
' We. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Taylor v
e Tavlor. 8 How, 1853; Fox VS.. Machret]
! Lead. eu. Cas-, Vol. l, PIT. l, 1888; MOI
T VS.. More. supra. AS has been prevlou
: lv held in this case, however, the recor
t does not Justify this contention OF tn
? defendant. 1t shows as a whole thu
| I to1y q