Press enter after choosing selection

About $17,000 Against Gruner

About $17,000 Against Gruner image
Parent Issue
Day
6
Month
November
Year
1903
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Attorney Arthur Brown has received the opinion of the supreme court in the Gruner-Ellis case. The opinion is a very long document and takes up each individual transaction. Judge Hooker wrote the opinion and puts the determination of the case upon the three questions:

1. Did Mr. Gruner exercise reasonable care?

2. Did any loss occur?

3. Did H.P. Ellis compromise?

On the first point the opinion says: "Apparently the executor Gruner attempted to do this and the evidence leaves as little doubt that he failed to do so in regard to the funds invested in Ogemaw county."

The contention that no money of the estate had been sent to Ogemaw except $38,000 by Ellis himself, from which $24,000 cash had been realized and securities enough left for the balance is disposed of by the statement that Gruner was entitled to credit for any worthless investments that Ellis had made, but not for losses on reinvestments. Ellis had an indemnity mortgage from French, which was afterward released. Beginning with 1893 the value of the Ogemaw lands depreciated. French made collections on some of the mortgages and either reloaned the money or sent other mortgages already in his possession which Gruner accepted, some of which were on worthless Plains land. Gruner's want of reasonable care was summarized in Bogle and Brown's brief and adopted by the court as:

1. He never made investigation as to identify, location, productive qualities or title of the Ogemaw securities, but left everything to the discretion of French.

2. The release of the indemnity mortgage.

3. Neglect to heed admonitions of French's waning finances and consequent embarrassment.

4. Negligence in sending discharges to French and requiring an accounting of the same.

5. Failure to know that mortgages were foreclosed by French without payment to the estate.

6. Omission to collect past due paper.

7. Report in annual account of mortgages which had been discharged, lost, or paid to French.

8. Consent to reduction in rate of interest.

9. Failure to personally supervise Ogemaw loans. 

10. Leaving $1,000 due estate in French's hands.

The opinion compliments the brief of the contestants for the formidable array of circumstances in support of these claims. The court says:

"We cannot escape the conclusion that Mr. Gruner was exceedingly lax in his supervision of these dealings...He was cheated by French in various ways. Worthless land was imposed upon him. Excessive loans were made, collections were not reported and in various ways the estate was depleted."

The court finds that the claim that the losses were compromised by H.P. Ellis is not sustained in the proof.

Speaking of Mr. Gruner personally the court says:

"Yet not a shadow of suspicion of Gruner's entire honesty of purpose is discernible. He was evidently a confiding old man, a good citizen, worthy of better treatment and a better fate."

Then follows the details as to each claim, each loan, etc., which covers many pages. A hasty compilation by the Argus indicates that the court allows the Ellis estate about $17,000 for losses by Mr. Gruner. The Gruner estate is also called upon to pay the costs of litigation, which will amount to about $4,000.