The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-05-18

itably disposed he might have been ii
public matters generally.
Methods Of Realty Men.
Another thing with reference TO the
value of the land in this country In
1905. Since 1905 the court will almosl
take judicial knowledge OF the manner
In which real estate agents have beer
dealing in this country. 1t comes be.
fore him so much here in litigation and
in his general knowledge of the man
ner in which it is done, that If he fol-
low the rule of the statute and judic-
tally know everything that he ought
to know, he will know that when these
men sell land at $40 and $45 an acre
under the recent plan of selling land
the owner Of the land doesn't get any
such figure. That agents go to the
people and get their net price and Their
In some instances put on at least from
81 to SIS an acre-just as much as
they can get the purchaser to pay. and
they see to it that those purchasers
do not talk with anybody else until they
leave on the train for st. Paul.
am perfectly satisfied that this land
In 1905, at the time that this transac-
ton was made and the Ledbetter title
was extinguished, was not worth on the
market more than $26 or SGT an acre
to the man who owned e.
The court is somewhat embarrassed
in estimating Mr.. Malette's testimony
because he swore to good many con-
illusions Of fact. For instance here is
a statement which he makes when he
starts out with reference TO this trans
action: 81 made the purchase for
myself" There is conclusion Of fact.
That is the very question that is up
for discussion. Mr.. Malette may think
he purchased that for himself, and
without knowing the legal results of
certain of his acts, he might honestly
conclude that he bought for himself.
Whether he did or not depends upon
what he actually did and consequently
we have to go into the surrounding cir
cumstances here a great deal in order
to determine that question. will read
some of Mr.. Malette's testimony:
Believed Land Was Gone.
%. Now, will ask you whether
there was any understanding or
bargain between either Of the Ledbet-
tiers and yourself prior to the expiration
Of the period of redemption Of the Kerr
sale and certificate? A. Not any; no
understanding whatever. After the de-
cision of the court considered, of
course, that the section was gone, be-
cause the judgment and costs-the
First National bank judgment and the
Nichols & Sheppard Judgment and
COSTS made the section come to more
than I could afford. couldn't get the
money to do it. had to borrow money
to take 1t to protect myself. @. Now
you have just referred to a conversa-
ton with Mr.. Ledbetter subsequent to
the time the period for redemption ex-
pired, have you? A. Yes sir"
And again: "Then in December of
the year following the decision of
the courts, Kerr gave Mr.. Ledbetter
written order TO vacate the premises.
had that chattel mortgage on the
stock and tools and machinery and to
protect myself had to buy the land
in order to have a place for the stock
and tools, and some hopes of working
out on that chattel mortgage, and after
Mr.. LedbeIter had received that order
to vacate he came to my place and we
talked 1t over If 1t wouldn't be better
to sell the stuff and let it go. @. What
stuff? A. The security, the stock and
tools. But it was in December and
he said it wouldn't bring anything, so
about that time after Mr.. Ledbetter
came to see me / went to Fargo and
bought the section from Kerr
In other words, there have been two
conversations that have occurred here
between Mr.. Ledbetter and Mr. Ma
lette, which, unless we separate them
are liable to confuse the conditions
this transaction. l refer to
the conversation which he had before
the expiration of the period Of redemp-
ton, and that after. The testimony
shows that before the expiration of the
period of redemption on the Kerr judg-
ment their talk was all Of such a nature
that it would lead the court to conclude
that there was a mortgage relation be-
ing created, while all the talk after that.
as appears by the evidence, showed
that there was simply purchase upon
the part of Mr.. Malette and that his
position was not that of a mortgage.
The MaIette Situation.
If Mr.. Malerre was a mortgage. we
are presented with this situation. Here
Is a man who confesses that he has
not the money to loan and yet he goes,
because that is what 1t
amounts to, and borrows s11, 2S9 in or
der. to loan $4,000 an land that is
worth 81 to $25 an acre not to say any
thing about $4,000 worth of his own in
debtedness. If you put his Indebtedness
along with the other. you have the
anomalous position of a man deliber-
every, dollar the property is worth and
more. do not believe that Mr.. Malette
In his sane moments ever did an act
If that kind, and can not see that this
shows 1t. How does he hap
pen to go and buy the land? Why
iidn't he drop the thing? Why did he
nave anything more to do with 1t RI
Why did he continue there If he did not
want to sustain any more relations to
his property? ] might answer that
question by saying: "Why did he get
nto this thing in the first placer" Here
vas Mr.. Ledbetter right in the hands
If the sheriff and with his family about
70 be thrown off the land. He owes
Mr. Ma1ette about $500, and there ne
$, suppliant at Mr.. Malette's door
again asking him TO help him out.
can see what would pass through Mr.. |
mind. This does not appearI
n the evidence in words, but 1t appears
~ all their acts and transactions. Mr..
Malette says II have lost this secur- |
ty which ] supposed had. All have
low to secure me for the Sc, 200 that is