, 1873-08-15
The Combination Intended to Stiae
Competition
Something More About the Great West
ern Telegraph.
Divorce Cases---In nankrnptcy~-.
Tho Courts in Bricl.--
New Suits.

Wheeler, Nelson, and othcrgt tho complalnant9
in tho original bill, aa the reason why they hRd
not cons'1nmnted tho agroomont for par!nor-
ship, asking tho Court to stop Whooler, Nelson,
and othors using their name in tho firm namo Of
Vincent, Ilough j. Co., and that tho Court re-
Hovo thom from my obligation that may DO
claimed to oxist On thcrn to ontor said partner
hhip on tho further ground Of distrust aud ill.,
compatibility md further, that in tho event Of
the Court taking tho view that tho partnership
is in oxistoncc that tho business may DO carried
on under the order Of tho Court and not undor
aho present manager.
They also flod IN answer, denying Tint my
Partnership existed bctweon tlorn mud tho COM
plainants, and admitting That there was in
agreement for partnership entered into Bub-
stantially ns stated in complainants' bill but
denying that tho fact Of such agreement aa got
hopBtitutcd o partnership; and insisting that 1t
WAS nothing moro than M agreement that hcro-
after might amount to partnership; denying
n1so TINT tho effect OF tho second agreement
N4th Of Juno) WAS to preclude tlom from using
their own property up to tho tino that it was
ropaired md rondy for uHo. Tho answer con-
cludos with alleging matters Of misconduct and
tncompatibility that ought to rolievo tho defend
nntH from liability to an injunction.
Tho Houghs also filed an affidavit affirming
that tho statement In tho complainnntB' bill that
thoy had ngreod to receive $500 to rolin-
3uisl, their right to using tho oleyator during
their tHe of tho elevator doos not intorforo with
tho repairB; TINT tho complainantB' allegation
that the elevator il unsafe is untrue; that thoro
is slftlcency Of bumpers; tllat bosidos the in
I'd through an Injunction, they. would thoul-
solveB suffer heavy losses md that thcso pro-
ceedings aro prosecuted only for the purpose Of
Opposing and annoying thom. Defondants
tho attempted partnership. hurry, Nelson, md
bis hrm. control the National Elevator;
and that tloy are informed and believo
that somo Days since, on IN application
Of the eamo on board 2 cargo Of No. 2 or high
anixcl com, to about 1t, 600 bushels, and maAing
aeliyory in the promises, ~ such delivery inter
mixed thorowith about $50 bushels of hot and
was to be mado up at nnothor elevator, that Of
Armour, Dole l. Co., of tho eamo grade Of No.
2 corn !; md that on the parties shipping from
snid last named elevator dlacoTcri:" tho ntlmi1-
refused to make up tho balanco Of cargo, Which
matter is now at Issue between the parties and
these defendants doubt tho proprioty of entrust-
ing their c1ovator property to such management,
and submit for the confederation of tho Court tho
following as tho agroement for the paymont Of
$3,500:
CHICAGO, Juno II, 1873.
wo, tho owners OF the National Elevator md Union
a Of 9eta upon M fhs delivery ri 10 Vincent % ough
Co. Of the chtcago and St. Louis Elosntor IN complete
working order, null In condition to receive, porc, aud
deliver grain. (signuG} GgoRoE ARMOUR l. Go.
VINCENT, NELHoN 4 Co.
And affirm that this wnb tho only agreement
respecting tho compensation they wore alleged
TO have agreed to receive for the express pur-
poso of relinauiahing their share in tho profits
during tho time the repairs were in progress
mud they insist that tho agreement was only
mado az an nducemont to them to ontor tho CO.
,it, md mn
whatever to any relinquislsInent Of profits.
On tho other side, Hiram Wheeler and Murry
Nelson mako oath ind Hay that tho contract Of
the 14th Juno promising to pay tho Houghs
$500 wln written by doponcnt, Wheeler, and
that the conversation that led to Its being drawn
out waB substantially as follows:
Defendants claimed that they ought 10 havo
the profits from tho timo Of entering into m
firm Of Vincent, HouBh d. Co., stating that they
could go on and receive grain during The ropairs,
and that the repairs could bo completed in thirty
days.
Complannnts wore unwilling that defendants
should sllaro i'll profits uutl tho completion Of
Tho warehouse. because dofondantB could not re-
ceive grain while repairing, md do juRtice to
sns a e xas an Italy agsood seps ha IT, sa
$500 should be paid in lieu OF the, profits.
Further, TINT tho statements to tho contrary by
defendants arc untrue, and that since the 1Bt
tNst. 4. NJ. l. Q. s. Hough, st tho Office OF
Armo,r' oi,mitto1 tho 5orcro;n~ vera;on ~ tf,e
ronai;iarrot;nr Ii for anid contTocte 0A @A~
fn this as,ann tha e mnttnr was arn,cd
The Gonrt Sp aa5 that ha co11d n6t san bow the
romnlainnnta conld ba ;niurod hv tta fants t,,oi
dofoninnta ware doing huEiuass uiloas It might bf
Ehat thov wnrc oLi,red tn ia a a,noilor nmoun
Of business thomaoiyeB. Int thia was mt nyorrof
In tho bill nor il il was would it bo suiIlcient II
nupport an Injunction, uo held thnt tho nart
nerslip contract wau still executory. and Tim
tho partnorship did not conmoneo az to til.
also remarked TINT the contract itself had the an
ruarauco Of boing intended to stine competition
The Court further said TINT tlero might have beo1
mn intonton by tho compainanta that tic contrac
shouId bo Whit thoy cIaimod. but thoy lad failo,
10 inHert any provision in tho contrsct to tbn
siroct, and be could not now Pit it in. '
rhe nna,x"r ~ tha hae crnra Iii md npr,mont ~
herross iii IIon~f, " Wl,ee1ar NalsoS ot nj NJ
nost in ordar. 1~"o@' - 1'0'"O'@ ~ '' -
Tun app.r ,vrurupu rvy rnr.p., co,,p.rv
@ONA+