Smith was pay the entire purchase price in cash. To enable him buy the land, Smith tried negotiate a loan through the defendant, Treat, and his partner, Drummond, ghost writer college papers who resided at Atchison, Kan. and were engaged in negotiating loans upon real property for a commission.
An arrangement was entered into Smith with Treat and Drummond in virtue which they agreed join with Smith in making the purchase. By the terms this agreement the land, when conveyed, was deeded Smith, who was execute a mortgage upon the land for the purchase money, but the property, when bought, was held him for the benefit himself, his son, and Treat and Drummond, each entitled an undivided one-third interest therein.
This arrangement, however, with Smith, was not carried out, becaùse Treat and Drummond failed to obtain a loan the property for such a sum as vvas needed pay for the property at the price per acre. Smith having failed to raise the money purchase the land from Russell, Russell himself applied Treat and Drummond negotiate a loan the property in the sum, enable him carry out his contract for the purchase the land which had not at that time been executed. Up this point there no substantial controversy between the parties concerning any the material facts, but here there a confiict as what occurred. Russell contends, in substance, that he never agreed with Treat and Drummond purchase the land jointly with them, and that simply employed them as brokers negotiate a loari in his behalf, while Treat insists that when Russell applied them obtain a loan the property in the sum, and his partner entered into a verbal agreement with Russell of substantially the same character as that which they had previously had with Smith, namely, that they would unite with him in purchasing the property joint account, and would buy paper online endeavor raise the money wherewith purchase the land negotiating a sale a mortgage the property in the sum, which mortgage should executed Russell.
Paraphrasing in english
The defendant produced much testimony which tended show that a verbal agreement substantially like that which set forth above in the statement, was entered into between himself and Drummond the one hand with Russell on the other for the joint purchase the land, in pursuance which a mortgage the property was executed Russell and negotiated Treat and Drummond that the purchase money the amount of, was thus secured and paid the former owner the land and that the property was thereupon conveyed Russell in January, agreeing convey Treat and Drummond an undivided two-thirds interest therein when requested which conveyance and his wife subsequently executed and acknowledged on Recurring the principal issue fact which stated above, is observed that no witness in the case besides the complainant and his wife gave testimony tending show that either March, or at any other date prior April, they were requested the defendant sign a blank instrument resembling a deed, and that they did sign such an instrument pursuant such request.
This incident which the complainants relate, far as the need help writing my essay record discloses, was witnessed no other person, and the only explanation which they seem able give the manner in which their genuine signatures the deed April, could have been obtained. The testimony the defendant in relation this incident is very positive, and the efifect that the only instrument which the complainants signed March, was a deed trust the property custom writing essay service in dispute securing the loan, with which the property was purchased, and possibly an order directing how the money, when obtained, should expended, and that neither that occasion nor any other were the complainants requested sign any blank paper resembling a deed or help with dissertations any other instrument.
The defendant's testimony equally positive the efïect that the deed of April, professional essay writers for hire was signed and acknowledged that day in his ofhce, and not March, both the complainants being at the time present, and fully conscious its contents and what they were doing. The defendant's statement in this latter respect fully corroborated the notary public before whom the deed April, was acknowledged, who claims have a distinct recollection meeting both the complainants in the defendant's ofifice that day, their signing the deed in write my paper for cheap his presence and acknowledging it before him.
The notary himself corroborated thesis writing in uk the officiai record his proceedings that day, which was required keep.
This record shows the acknowledgment the deed in question April, and, while the notary was unable, his examination, say definitely whether asked the complainants please help me write my essay if they knew what was in the deed, or told them what was at the time took ttieir acknowledgment, yet that was safe say that did the one thtng or the other. Moreover, the presumption that the complainants were acquainted with the contents help me write a personal statement the deed, and signed with a full understanding its contents, created the notarial certificate acknowledgment, which presumption, if not conclusive, is entitled great weight, the certificate being an officiai record, and it cannot overcome at this late day without the clearest and most The record discloscs other facts which support the contention of the defendant that the deed April, was consciously executed the complainants in pursuance a verbal agreement made with Treat and Drummond prior the negotiation the loan for ooo that the land in controversy should purchased joint account, and that Treat and Drummond should have a two-thirds interest in the property when was acquired. For more than four years subsequent April, the defendant, Treat, frequently visited the land which the complainants were residing, and conferred with Russell about the management the place, the execution leases for parts the land, and other matters which would naturally interest one who had a proprietary interest in the property. He also advanced and paid interest the outstanding loan when Russell was unable and also paid taxes upon the property when they became in arrear. The money advanced the defendant from time time amounted a sum exceeding. Russell never seems have resented such interference with his afïairs, but for several years conferred with the defendant freely, and accepted assistance and advice from him precisely as one would be expected confer with and seek assistance from another who was interested with him in a joint venture. In a word, the actions the parties subsequent April, i, are consistent with the theory that the defendant had a proprietary interest in the property, and entirely inconsistent with the view that his interest was merely that a broker who had once negotiated a mortgage the land, and was help with essay introduction only interested in seeing that the interest the loan was paid, and that the mortgage was not foreclosed. Besides, May, and again May, after difificulties had arisen between the parties, the complainants entered into written agreements with the defendant concerning the future management and control the land, which agreements almost in their opening paragraphs contained a recital the following efïect ïliat whereas the said parties hereto are owners, and have been for the past five years, three hundred aud forty acres land situated In sections fourteen and fifteen and twenty-three in townsbip flt'ty-four, range thirtyseven, Platte county, Missouri, etc. On May, the complainants also executed a deed trust covering the property in controversy one Holbert secure a note which they had executed in the sum, in which deed of trust they described their interest in the land as being an undivided one-third interest. Some time afterwards, and in the month August, complainant and his wife also entered into an agree ment with the defendant for the arbitration certain differences which had arisen between them, and which seem bave grown in part out the contract May, heretofore mentioned.