Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1872-12-04
Court Proceedings.

The case of Henry Wagner vs.. George
q. Porter, on trial to the Court when
last weeks report closed, occupied the
time-antil Friday moon, nosession being
bad on Thursday. Pltintif sought toob
tain a decree for specific performanceof a
land contract for his farm al Oil Diggines,
sold TO defendant during the oil. excite
ment at that place several years since.
The purchase price was ab5nt So, coo, of
which defendant had paid 81, 900, and on
his part asked for a RECESSION of the con.
tract and to recover back the smount
paid. Judge Conantrefused both claims,
dismisSing the proceedings at plaintiffs
costs. bat without prejudice to the rights
of either party at law. Moses and lay
Tor for plaintiff; Judge futile for de-
PENDANT.
The case of Milton Sutlif VS.. William
Lindsay, ct al, was next tried to the
Court. Deserved. Further report will
be made when decision is rendered.
On Saturday the case of ]. & D. w.
Hitchcock vs.. McLain & Co.. was tried
to a jury. The defendants, Gen. T. J.
McLain and J. c. McLain, were partners
in the boot and shoe business in Warren,
from Sept. l, 1868. to Sept. l, 1869, under
n4me of McLain & Co. During that
time the firm bought goods of the plain
tifs, who are Wholesale boot and shoe
dealers living in Boston, through a trav-
cling agent chiefly, though some bills
were bought direct of the house. The
account ran on, shipments of goods be-
ing made from time to time, until the
spring or summer of 1870, the plaintiffs
/ continuing to charge and ship the goods
to McLain & Co. The balance sued for
was from $500 to 5000, and the question
involved was whether General McLain,
now the only solvent member of the old
firm, should be held. The plaintiffs
claimed that they had no notice of the
dissolution until long after the last bill
of goods was shipped. The defendants
showed that they had given The usual
notice of dissolution in the WESTERN
RESERVE CHRoNICLEa the time. There
appeared in evidence, also, three letters
addressed to plaintiffs, one dated Oct. 8.
1859, and the others IN January, 1870;
one advising plaintiffs that |" we will pay
draft" ETC., u the others ordering
goods; the personal pronoun in each
case being i've" and 'us", though the
letters were signed "J. C. McLai1," and
the name of McLain & Co." did not APP
pear anywhere upon them. Defendants
/ claimed that these letters, being signed
J.. c. McLain, of themselves were sum-
cient notice TO plaintiffs to put them up
on inquiry, and hat it was their fault if
they didn't make due inquiry at the
proper source. The Court charged that
newspaper notice of itself was not sufh-
cient, but that if any information was
brought to pl intiffs of a character cslcu-
lated to put a reasonable man on inquiry
as TO the dissolution, then plaintiffs were
bound 10 make such inquiry, and if they
neglected to do so, were in no better pc
sition han if they had done so and
learned the fact Of dissolution. The jury,
however, didn't seem TO think the letters
were of that character, and, after an alb
sence of thirty minutes. brought in a
verdict or plaintiffs, against both de-
PENDANTS, for 1854 IL. Hon. L. D. Wood
worth and Spear for plaintiffs ; Hutchins
and Tuttle for defendants,
Criminal business commenced on Mon
day.