Cited by

In King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 25 , , it was put in this form: “ ‘The rule which disables one occupying a confidential or fiduciary relation in respect to property the subject of sale, from purchasing for his own benefit, and regarding him as a trustee if he do purchase, is absolute, and looks to no other facts than the relation

The self-dealing involved a breach of the trustees’ duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries (Smith v. Tolversen, 190 Minn. 410 , ; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

423 ; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , 29 N.W.

And whenever such dealings are the basis of a claim by the fiduciary, the burden is on him to show that they were fair, made in good faith, upon an adequate consideration and a full understanding.” 6 Dunnell, Supp. § 9937; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Boyum v. Jordan, 146 Minn. 66 , .

6 Dunnell, Supp. § 9937; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , 29 N.W.

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Lewis v. Welch, 47 Minn. 193 , , ; Turner v. Fryberger, 94 Minn. 433 , , 110 A. S. R. 375; Ottawa B. & T. Co. v. Crookston State Bank, 185 Minn. 22 , .

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , 29 N.W.

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Tilleny v. Wolverton, 46 Minn. 256 , ; In re Granstrand, 49 Minn. 438 , ; Bjorngaard v. Goodhue County Bank, 49 Minn. 483 , ; St.

Furthermore, prior to May 26, 1924, the trust company took over no property of the foundry company, either alone or in connection with any other party, interfered with or controlled none of its business; hence no relief to the foundry company, or to anyone claiming through it, could be bottomed upon the principles which warranted redress in King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , or in Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage, 73 Minn. 441 , .

It calls attention to the allegation of the complaint that the purchaser from the trustee took the property with full knowledge of all the antecedent facts and circumstances, and invokes the doctrine of King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , and particularly the principles stated on pages 33 and 34 of the opinion.

Baldwin v. Allison, 4 Minn. 11 (25); King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , Lewis v. Welch, 47 Minn. 193 , , ; Donahue v. Quackenbush, 62 Minn. 132 , ; Gilbert v. Hewetson, 79 Minn. 326 , , 79 Am.

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374 , ; Fountain v. Menard, 53 Minn. 443 , , 39 Am.

Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cowen, 537; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, 94 Minn. 421 , ; Shevlin v. Shevlin, 96 Minn. 398 , .

Plaintiff insists that O’Dean was Wagner’s agent, therefore the latter is bound by O’Dean’s misrepresentations; or else that the two were partners and in the partnership business the misrepresentations of one partner makes the individual partners liable, and cites King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , and Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283 , .

1 Bates, Partnership, § 389; Gilmore, Partnership, pp. 318, 319; King v. Kemington, 36 Minn. 15 , .

Church v. Odell, 100 Minn. 98 , ; Hodge v. Twitchell, 33 Minn. 389 , ; Stern v. Harris, 40 Minn. 209 , ; Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374 , ; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 36 , ; Gasser v. Wall, 111 Minn. 6 , ; Botsford v. Van Riper, 33 Nev.

In King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , it is stated: “The rule which disables one occupying a confidential or fiduciary relation, in respect to property the subject of a sale, from purchasing for his own benefit, and regarding him as a trustee if he do purchase, is absolute, and looks to no other facts than the relation and the purchaser.”

It was held in the case of King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , that the interest in his real estate remaining in the bankrupt was in the nature of a reversion; that the estate of the assignee in bankruptcy was similar in all respects, except its inception, to that of an assignee in a voluntary assignment for the payment of debts; and, further, that the assignment

Ashton v. Thompson, supra; King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Fischer v. Sperl, supra.

The principles governing a trustee with reference to property embraced within the trust are fully enumerated in King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , and subsequent cases.

The case of King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , , has no application, the facts there involved being entirely different.

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 30, 32 , ; Kinney v. Sharvey, *393 48 Minn. 98 , ; First National Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 383 , ; Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank, 45 Minn. 344 , .

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , .

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15 , ; Donahue v. Quackenbush, 62 Minn. 132 , ; Gilbert v. Hewetson, 79 Minn. 326 , .