The Leavenworth weekly times., 1878-11-14

| After nine years oil ntgatlOn the famous
case of Stettauer Bros, of Chicago, VS.
Carney, Stevens & Co., has been finally
brought to an end, resulting in victory for
the latter. The particulars Of the case are
| about these:
THE CASE IN DETAIL.
| In the spring of 1865, the plaintiffs, the
Stettauer Bros, and carney 4 Ste
1 vens, doing business in Leavenworth,
\ amounts OF goods to be taken to salt Lake
city for sale. kively died. which left the
| In the eptember iolIowing, stevens, of the
| fiim of Carney q Stevens, proposed to go TO
| Salt.Lake anu look after the interest oil the
! Iso nrns; and TO enable him 10 do so, the
4 plaintiffs invested him with full power 10
| ineir claim, ana al,o assigned II to him, to
| enable him to act rs the attorney and agent
| Cr the plaintiffs In the month of February,
| 1855, Stevens was in salt Lake armed with
! the power OF attorney, as well as the assign
/ ment of the piainIifs, ready TO make such
| arrangement as he should think best TO save
| the debt due the plaintiffs, as well as MS
| ii I'm. AID made AN arrangement with Baird
| Ior flour, and with Paige and Sa isbury for
| lIs shipment to Montana; the proceeds OF
| which were TO be shared by the
plaintiffs and Carney 4 Stevens pro rata,
| Baird did not nh his contract Baird left Salt
Lake and made a safe TO one Lewis of the one
ha of he goods, notes, flour, Sc., for his note
OF sl1,SZbS. and gave Lewis power OF attorney
To settle his affairs. Carney Stevens,
through one Nounan, got possession Of the
goods under the foim OF an assignment,
agreeing To pay certain preferred debts, and
tney, and the plaintiffs, lndemnined Lewis
| against the sl7,35S. This, as well as the
irtighting contract, was done in the name OF
carney X Stevens. The contracts so made in
behalf Of Carney x Stevens and the plaintiffs,
were by Stevens reported TO the plaintiffs,
and approved Of by them. Carney and the
plaintiffs knew nothing OF the shipments OF
Hour on the contract with Paige and Sails
bury TIL after II was done, but tien approved
% IL
Nou nan continues 10 sell good and convert
into flower, e, Till the matter was substan-
TALLY closed out by shipments OF flour, &c,
10 Montana, on the ft Lighting contract,
which was completed October, II, 1866 and
on the 2sth OF september, 1876, Carney and
plaintiffs were noticed by letter from Stew
ems OF the disposal OF the goods and ship
ment of Hour, &c; and aequiesced therein:
Baird had assigned the note OF Lewis, against
which the plaintiffs and Carney a. Stevens
had guaranteed Lewis, and cau-ed the same |
To be sued in the name OF one Shaffer. The |
power of attorney and agreement were pro-
cured by plaintiffs and Carney Stevens.
Mr.. Carney at Leavenworth, while Stevens
was in salt Lake City, and all the parties Ia |
the same knew the exact situation about |
which they were dealing except Baird. AT /
the time of the shipment OF this flour, in was |
worth In Motana So per sack, so that Carney |
4 stevens and the plaintiffs could and did |
rely on realizing sufficient to collect their
debts.
except the results of the transactions so car
ried out for the mutual benefit, and with the /
mutual concurrence of the plaintiffs and the
defendants IN this case. These were: Car
ney & stevens paid the cost OF obtaining the
Possession of the goods and other charges, in
all amounting TO $1,000. They paid on the
dant on same in excess Of what the property
ealized in Montana the snug little sum Of
Sli,275.J9. They paid preferred debts amOunt-
ed 10 q, ,s65 50. They paid the note, which
they had endorsed, OF McGrouty q Henry, in
exchange for flour, e2ii9. so, making s33, 1871 IS
paid out by them in this adventure. They
received, in tact, Si6,0 ,0i6 So, SO that their actu
IA 60. The attorneys for Carney 4 stevens
therefore, agreed that IL the plaintiffs should,
upon the facts found, share the loss so sus-
ssined BY Carney & Stevens, % 6y IN the zen efforts OF
they should have paid back TO c. q b. the
sum Of 81 ,5l7, to say nothing Of fractions, and
this should bear interest from at least Janua-
The referee, Judge Hurd, held that stet-
tauer Bros had a right to a Judgment for
A,IO. Judge Id- decided that neither party
had right TO recover and rendered judgment
against Stettauer Bros. for the costs. They
appealed to the Supreme Court and Carney,
Stevens q Co. who all through the litigation ,
serted the same claim in the Supreme Court
and Received q Judgment by the unanimous
decision OF the supreme Court against Siet.
tauer Bros. for 3, 152 Is and costs, The ,itiea-
ton was commencet in 1859, and was just
closed. Messrs. Green and Fenlon repre-
sented the Stettauer Bros. until near the close
OF the litigation, when they were joined by
Carney & Stevens Throughout the
case This suit, which is one of the most no.
ted ever tried BY the western courts, has been
final victory achieved BY Judge stillinss re- ,
fleets great credit upon his ability . law ,
yer and has served to increase hts already
oriinsnt reputation. He - an honor and
nix-d as one OF the foremost attorneys in the .
west- WIN lew equals and no superiors.