King v. Remington
Decision Date | 09 October 1886 |
Citation | 29 N.W. 352,36 Minn. 15 |
Parties | Caroline M. King v. Philo Remington and others. William S. King v. Philo Remington and others |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
These actions were brought in the district court for Hennepin county, against Philo Remington and his wife, Louis F. Menage and his wife, and Robert S. Innes, and were tried together by Young and Koon, JJ., without a jury. In each case a judgment was ordered for plaintiff, a new trial was refused, and the defendants appealed.
Orders affirmed.
John M Shaw and Albert L. Levi, for all the appellants.
Francis Kernan, for appellant Philo Remington.
Gordon E. Cole, for appellants Louis F. Menage and wife.
C. K Davis and J. E. Miner, for appellant R. S. Innes.
Eugene M. Wilson, Ripley & Morrison, John B. Atwater, and John Van Voorhis, for respondents.
These two cases grew out of the same transactions, and depend on the same condition of facts, and may be disposed of in the same opinion. The cases are very voluminous, and have been voluminously (and exhaustively) argued. The record in each case covers over 800 printed pages, and the briefs or arguments in both cases (they were argued together) cover 1,100 printed pages.
The facts, stating them as briefly as can be done and present the questions decided, are: On and prior to June 15, 1875 William S. King owned large quantities of land of great value in the counties of Hennepin and Meeker, in this state, and was largely indebted beyond his present means of paying, and suit had been brought against him, and his property in Hennepin county attached, upon a pretended claim for a very large amount. Caroline M. King, his wife, also owned a considerable amount of valuable real estate in the county of Hennepin. The lands were more or less incumbered with mortgage and judgment liens.
On the date mentioned the two Kings executed to Philo Remington three deeds, conveying to him absolutely, in terms, the greater part of the real estate of William S., and all the real estate of Caroline M. At the same time William S. and Remington executed a contract in writing, as follows:
No consideration was paid for said conveyances, except as specified in said contract. The deeds were duly recorded, but the contract was not recorded. Subsequently, from time to time, Remington advanced to King, and in satisfying mortgage and judgment liens, and purchasing or acquiring title to lands of the Kings, some included and some not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanek v. Libera
...Am. Ed.) 146, 169; Christ v. Firestone (Pa. St.) 11 A. 395; Crites v. Wilkinson, 65 Cal. 559; Deakin v. Underwood, 37 Minn. 98; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15; 17 Am. & Enc. 995-998. An instrument, knowingly executed, becomes a strong wall of evidence, not to be lightly overcome by unsatisf......
-
First National Bank of Winona v. Randall
...the writ. The assignors had such a reversionary interest in the assigned estate that they might move to vacate the attachment. King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, (29 352,) and cases cited. Under our insolvent law the value or extent of the assignors' interest in the estate is not inappreciable......