Belden v. Munger

• Decision Date: 01 January 1860
• Citation: 5 Minn. 169
• Parties: HENRY BELDEN vs. Wm. R. MUNGER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

5 Minn. 169

HENRY BELDENvs.

Wm. R. MUNGER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal from order of district court, Washington County.

Points and authorities for appellant: —

The agreement set up in the complaint is against the policy of the law, illegal and void, and the judge erred in refusing to charge the jury. Fol. 10, etc.; Story on Cont. § 562; Durant v. Titley, 7 Price, 577; 9 Barn. and Cress. 200, 202.

Gold T. Curtis, for appellant.

Sanford & Beveridge, for respondent.

EMMETT, C. J.

The right of the plaintiff to recover in this action depends upon the following facts which appear from the record: It seems that one Lucius M. Belden had commenced proceedings in the district court, to procure a divorce from his wife Roxa Belden. That during the pendency of said action, he entered into an arrangement with her, through the parties to the present action, by which he agreed, in consideration that she would not appear in said action for divorce, and set up a claim to alimony, that he would transfer to Henry Belden the defendant herein, four promissory notes, which he then held against one Charles A. Belden, and which were secured by a mortgage on certain real estate, in trust to be held by said Henry, until said action for divorce should be determined; and if said Roxa did not appear in said action and claim alimony, then to deliver them to Munger, the plaintiff herein, to be by him held and collected for the use and benefit of said Roxa. That pursuant to said arrangement the notes were deposited with the defendant, and the said Roxa thereupon neglected to appear in said action, and did not set up any claim for alimony, and said divorce was accordingly granted by the court, without any provision for her maintenance; and that after the divorce was thus obtained, the defendant refused, on demand, to deliver the notes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon commenced the present action, alleging in detail the foregoing facts, and that the mortgage was ample security for the notes; and claiming judgment for the amount of said notes. The answer put in issue all of the facts stated in the complaint, except that concerning the pendency of the action for divorce, and alleged further that the notes were placed in his hands by said Lucius, for the use, and to be disposed of according to the directions, of Charles A. Belden, and that before the commencement of this action he had returned them to said Lucius by direction of said Charles. There was no reply, and on the trial the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the notes.

Quite a number of questions as to the rulings and charge of the court, the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, etc., were raised during the trial and on the motion for a new trial, but we think it is only...