The great financial exploit of the “associates” was followed by tedious, exasperating, and costly litigation. About the time of the foreclosure sales in June, 1879, Jesse P. Farley, who had been receiver of the Extension roads and general manager of the Division lines, brought suit in the district court of Ramsey County against Messrs. Kittson and Hill to recover from them one third of all moneys, securities, and effects which were accruing to them from the operation. In his complaint Mr. Farley alleged that “in the summer of 1876” a parol agreement had been made by the defendants and himself to undertake jointly the purchase of the bonds of the two railroad companies, the three to share equally in the net proceeds. In his testimony, he deposed that the two defendants had no knowledge of the great opportunity until revealed by him at the time mentioned. It was because of his intimate knowledge of the affairs of the companies, of his understanding of railroad finance, and his long experience as a railroad manager, that they were unwilling to make any adventure without his coöperation; and, to induce him to enter into the contract, they agreed to consider his knowledge and skill equivalent to the money they would severally procure. This part of the bargain was to remain a secret. The defendants denied that any such contract had been made, or that any conversation in relation to such an agreement had ever been had. They had been familiar with the condition and finances of the companies long before the time of the alleged contract. The district court found in favor of the defendants, as also did the Supreme Court of Minnesota on appeal. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have considered that there was a contract between the parties, but that it aborted when in the late fall of 1877 the “associates” were balked in the effort to borrow money in England with which to buy the bonds for cash. Encouraged by this recognition of a contract, Mr. Farley brought suit in the United States District Court for Minnesota in December, 1881, setting up substantially the same allegations. Defeated here, he took an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which in 1887 remanded the suit to the Circuit Court for a novation of proceedings. The printed pleadings, testimony, exhibits, and arguments fill more than five thousand octavo pages. The Circuit Court held with the defendants that no contract had been made, and that the plaintiff, standing in the relation of a trustee, could not honorably or legally have embarked in any such enterprise. When Farley’s appeal reached the Supreme Court of the United States, in October, 1893, that tribunal sustained the decision of the Circuit Court so far as it denied the making of the alleged contract. The plaintiff had not proven his allegations, and his story was inherently improbable. The court had no occasion to pass on the impropriety of an agreement never made.