Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-08-04
THE GRANTS as COTTON sPECU
TATORG

pdTLlCulaf DSucuL the NlNCluHatl LtYhH6
presents, from the records Of the Superior
Court of Cincinnati, the following interest
ing documents which are copied from the
originals:
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CINCINNATI,
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO.
Jesse r. Grant u.s. Hartman Mack, Henry
Mack and Simon Mack, partners as Mack
Brothers. Petition. The plaintiff states
that on or about the sixth day of Deceul-
Der, A. d. 1862, he entered into an agree
ment with the defendants for the purpose Of
partnership purchases of cotton, in the
military department commanded BY Gen
eral y. S. Grant, the conditions Of said
agreement being as follows:
Defendants we're to furnish all the money
that might be required in said business, and
the necessary number Of men to purchase
and ship the cotton, they being allowed
seven per cent per annum for the money
SO employed during the time it was neces-
sarily used. Plaintiff, on his part, was to
90 with the men furnished as aforesaid by
the defendants, TO the headquarters Of Gen
eral Grant, and procure permit for them
to purchase cotton, secure transportation
and such other facilities as might be con-
sistent with the ussges and interests of the
army. The defendants were TO have the
cotton thus purchased, shipped Immediately
to New York and sold, and the net profits
of sales, after deducting from the gross pro-
ceeds the necessary expenses Of buying,
freight and selling, except the wages of the
men furnished az aforesaid by the defend
ants, were to be divided between the parties,
in the proportion of three-fouFths to the de-
PENDANTS and one-fourth to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in no event being liable for
any portion of loss that might be incurred
Plaintiff says that said agreement was at
once and faithfully carried ont upon his
part, and also was by the defendants 80 far
as the purchase of cotton, its transportation
to New York and sale were concerned, but
defendants have broken said agreement in
this, that they have utterly failed and re-
fused to render to plaintiff any account OF
such transactions, or to pay over to him any
portion of his share of the profits arising
from the same although said account and
payment have been repeatedly demanded
by the plaintiff. Plaintiff says that under
said contract large amount of cotton was
purchased, as many as three hundred bales
or more, at an average cost Of from fifty to
fifty-four cents per pound, and which was
sold in New York at such prices as to real
ize a net profit Of forty thousand dollars or
over. The exact number of bales pur-
chased, the precise price of such purchase,
and the exact amount of expenses and OF
proceeds of sale, he is unable to state, the
account of the same being in the possession
of the defendants, who refuse TO furnish a
statement of it. But the amount purchased,
and the net profits realized, are not less
than az above stated, while the same may
and probably will exceed the amounts be-
fore stated.
Plaintiff asks that an account may be
taken between himself and the defendants,
and that the defendants may be ordered to
pay over TO him such an amount as may
be found due to him from them, under the
agreement hereinbefore set forth, and that
all such other orders may be made in his
behalf as he may be equitably entitled to
in the premises. II. Snow,
Attorney for Plaintiff
The State of Ohio, Hamilton county, S.:
jesse r. Grant, the plaintiff, makes oath
that he believes the statements of the fore
going petition to be true.
JESSE +. GRANT.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
31st day of December, A. d. 1868. 4
VIM. f. JONES,
Notary Public, Hamilton county, Ohio
DEMURRER OF THE DEFENDANTS.
Hartman Mack e al. rs. Jesse r. Grant.
[ No. II, 5S7.
And the said defendants came and de-
muir to the petition of the said plaintiff,
and for cause of demurrer say:
First. The said petition does not state
facts sufficient TO constitute cause of
action.
Second The petition does not state any
legal and valid consideration for the alleged
undertaking and obligation of the defend
ants.
Third The contract on which the suit
is brought is contrary to public policy.
The defendants therefore ask judgment,
and that they be dismissed with their costs.
CALDWELL d TrLDEN,
Attorneys for Defendants.
When the case came up the following
proceedings we're had:
SUPERIOR COURT-GENERAL TERM.
Jesse r. Grant rs. Mack Brothers. Judge
Hoady delivered the opinion. The case
was reserved from special term on demur-
rer to the petition. The action was insti-
tuted for the settlement of a partnership
account. -
The plaintiff AYERS that in December,
1862, be entered into a partnership with de-
PENDANTS for the purchase of cotton in the
military district of u. S. Grant the condi-
ton OF the agreement that the defendants
were 10 furnish the capital and the men to
purchase and ship cotton and the plaintiff
to procure at the headquarters of General
Grant permit to purchase 1t, secure trans
portation and such other facilities az might
be consistent with the usages and interests
of the army. The plaintiff was to receive
one-fourth share of the net profits of sales
after deduCting from gross proceeds the
necessary expenses. The petition further
states that there was realized profit in the
defendants favor of not less than SAC, 900,
and that they refuse TO render an account
or to pay the plaintiff his proportion.
The defendants claim that the plaintiff
contributed by his own showing, neither
capital nor lawful service to the copartner-
ship, and that their agreement to pay him
a share Of the profits is, therefore without
sufficient consideration.
The court cannot presume that the plain
tiff intended TO aIlege that he undertook
that which was prohibited by law. His
acts and promises msy have been illegal.
and the partnership one for forbidden en-
terprise, but in the absence Of an answer so
averring, the court cannot assume it, unless
the averments are inconsistent with any
other theory.
The purchase Of cotton in the military
department commanded 10y Gen. Grant WAS
illegal, unless carried on by permission
Of the President, obtained through the
Treasury Department.
The plaintiff AYERS that he was to go TO
the headquarters Of Gen. Grant and procure
permit 10 purchase cotton. Whether this
was expected to be obtained from the Gen
eral himself, from some member Of his stat,
or Treasury agent at headquarters, is not
stated. Whether the plaintiff was to pro-
cure il as a personal favor, or by the use Of
personal influence, or in the ordinary mode
Of business, is not shown. The court could
not presume he was to get his permit from
an officer not authorized by law to give it,
or that he was TO procure it as the reward
OF personal, political, or other Legitimate
influence. They must rather infer that he
,,-ovosaI n aoi5rff and ,,rpcura a f,arr1il N