See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 - “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.” The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.Įven if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated and the Mortgage of the same date. Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve. The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference. IT IS HEREBY ORDEred, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:ġ.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.Ģ.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated are null and void.ģ.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on Jis null and void, of no effect.Ĥ.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.ĥ.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause. Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.Īt 12:15 on Decemthe Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.ĭefendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.Ī Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on Decemat 10:00 am. Jerome Daly First National Bank of Montgomery vs.
0 kommentar(er)
