Wilson v. Bell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The plaintiff and defendant were partners, under the name of Bell & Wilson, in the business of buying and selling real estate. In the year 1859 the partnership was dissolved and Wilson was entrusted with all the property of the late firm and with the duty of settling its affairs.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff and defendant were partners, under the name of Bell & Wilson, in the business of buying and selling real estate. In the year 1859 the partnership was dissolved and Wilson was entrusted with all the property of the late firm and with the duty of settling its affairs. To carry out this arrangement defendant and wife conveyed to plaintiff all their interest in the real estate of the late firm, (a large portion of which was situated in Hennepin county,) in trust for the benefit of the firm. Subsequently and on the 22d January, 1861, the defendant by deed referring to the before…
1Opinion of the Court
*64 By the Court.
Ripley, Ch. J.
The district judge sustains the mortgage made by the appellant as trustee of Bell and Wilson to the executors of his father’s will. In this we think he is clearly right. In the instrument executed by Bell on Jan. 22d, 1861, the appellant is expressly authorized to mortgage the premises conveyed to him in trust “ as he may see fit.”
The respondent contends that, “ giving effect to the whole instrument, it is manifest that the power to mortgage can only be exercised in case it is shown that the trustee has incurred increased liabilities.”
It grants to the trustee “…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baldwin v. AllisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. HoweSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874