Evening Republican, Volume 17, Number 283, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 November 1913 — Notes of the Jasper Circuit Court. [ARTICLE]

Notes of the Jasper Circuit Court.

Civil—The case of the Manhattan Lumber Co. vs. Crumpacker, et al occupied the attention of the court Tuesday. A large number of clients as well as attorneys were present during the proceedings. The issues nave been closed now and the further hearing of the case is set for Decern ber 15th. The point of vital importance in this case is to determine whether or not certain defendants can be held individually, as well a copartnership, for the reason that the property, is in itself not worth enough to satisfy the claims; aiftk the only hope of fully recovering is to secure personal judgments. The question arose yesterday when Peter Crumpacker, John A. Uavit, and other defendants, filed an answer in two paragraphs to the second paragraph ot plaintiff’s complaint. The first paragraph was a general denial and the second alleged in substance that the contract alleged to have been entered into, as set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint, as between the defendants and the Manhattan Lumber Co. was in fact not a contract at all, for the reason that it was not signed by all the defendants, who had agreed to sign the same; and that the Lumber Co. knew that the other defendants who did not sign the same had agreed to do so and that the contract would not be effective until all parties had signed, the same. The plaintiff filed a demurrer to this paragraph of answer qnd the attorneys proceeded to present their authorities to the court, bearing upon trie legal proposition as to whether or not a contract such as mentioned above, constituted a contract in legal effect. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the court overruled plaintiff’s demurrer, which means that the facts set-up in defendant’s;, answer, if true and proven at the trial, would not constitute a contract at all, and that the parties who signed same cannot be held personally liable for the lumber and materials purchased of the plaintiff. The attorneys for both sides all agreed that if the plaintiff could prove the allegations of the. first paragraph of complaint, that is, that the defendants constituted a co-partnership, that every member of the co-partnership could be held personally. It is all a question of proof. If the plaintiff can prove that a partnership existed’, then the individual members of the partnership can be held, -if the plaintiff fails to prove a co-part-nership, but can prove the allegations of his second paragraph of complaint, based upon the alleged contract, then the parties defendant may he held as individuals, but failing to do either of these the plaintiff will fail unless he can show that the acts of the defendants who did not sign the supposed agreement, constituted a ratification of the acts of those who did sign; or that the defendants not signing are estopped to deny the contract, having accepted%he Jumber and materials and used same in the construction of the building at the 'race track. if the plaintiff fails to show either a partnership, a contract, a ratification or an estoppel, then it will be compelled to take satisfaction of its claim from the property of the race track, which is admitted to be worth not more than one-fourth of the claims against the same. But if the plaintiff can show a partnership, a contract, a ratification or an estoppel, then it can hold the individuals and as the defendants are financially responsible as individuals, the full amount of the claims could no doubt be recovered.

The case of Strong vs. Werner is being tried today before a jury. The jury had been notified not to return until Friday, the court thinking that the Manhattan Lumber case would occupy the time of the court on Wednesday and Thursday, but upon said case being continued by agreement of the parties until a date in December, the jury was again notified to be present tdday. The Strong-Werner case is an action to quiet title, and there is a dispute between the parties relative to the line dividing their lands. J. H. Chapman represents the plaintiff and W. H. Parkinson the defendant. G. A. Williams is also assisting the defendant and thereby representing parties who may be affected by the warranty in the deed to Werner in case Strong is successful.

Probate—S. C. Irwin, Admx. of the estate of Mathias Yeager, files final report and cause set for trial on February 9th, 1914. William (Bud) Hammonds, by his attorneq, G. A. Williams, has filed a petition, in the estate of Bryant Hammonds, deceased, alleging that the widow, who is a second childless wife, and the deceased, during his lifetime entered into a written agreement, whereby the widow was paid a stipulated sum of money as her interest in her husband’s estate; and asks that the administrator, J. A. Dunlap, be directed not to pay over any money to the widow in distribution of the proceeds of said estate, until the matters aleged in the petition may be heard by the court, in order to determine whether or not she is barred by said alleged contract from further sharing in said estate. Largo, white, solid Oysters; always fresh at Fate’s College Inn.