The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1884-09-19
ADVERTISEMENT.
TO NY FRIENDS AND PATRONS:

TO Ny FRIENDS AND PATRONS
Itis well known to you that since 1856 hay
been engaged IN compiling and keeping up (
public use an abstract of Land Titles for Ken0Sh
! County. Up to this time the correctness an
skill displayed in that enterprise was neYe
doubted.
After laboring every day in the week-some
times fourteen hours a day-f0r a space c
twenty-five years, without vacation. in an evl
hour, to get that vacation, l was tempted t
take a partner and sell him half the abstract
conditionally.
At the end of four years, finding it impossible
to go on longer with that partner (the partner
ship having expired a year before by Limitation
the partnership IS dissolved; but because thu
property is not easily susceptible Of division
and because of the binding character of til,
covenants contained in the articles OF c0-part
nershlp, am compelled to = abide by the stuff
until the option is given or taken, as provided
for In the Bill OF Sale and articles.
When, in compliance with those covenants,
offered to buy, my late partners reply was, :
will not sell, but will buy you out. will give
you $500 more than you offer your interest for
If you will sell to me on credit; but will buy
any way" (I have his letter showing thisl Sc
that promising to buy ana never doing It. was
forced to keep on and conserve the abstract
and it was this fatal necessity which compelled
me to occupy common Office for 81 months af-
ter the dissolution, and, as designed and pre-
pared, furnished the apparent presumption OF a
I" Continuing Partnership, an allegation which
has been used and the changes rung upon it in all
the litigation with which Ihave been saddled, to
accomplish the ends of those inlmieal to me.
say, apparent presumption" because it is
notorious and proven, that the notice of disSOlu-
| ton was published, the signs changed, the In
Surance Agencies transferred to me, and the law
business to that partner, and that he set up bust
ness for himself, became the correspondent for
| the Chicago Times, taking the salary to himself,
and there is nothing but this common occu-
pancy, answered interest, and unsettled equity.
between the partners to base such a presumption
upon.
The Bill of Sale of the half interest was as
follows:
Know all men by these presents, that 1.
Samuel Y. Brande, of the City of Kenosha, in
the State OF wisconsin, for and in consideration
OF the sum of Four Thousand Dollars to me in
hand paid by Herbert NJ. Theirs, of the said
City OF KenOsha, and in consideration of the
covenants and agreements contained in articles
OF agreement between the parties hereto, of
even date herewith, and the stlpulations and
promises OF the bargainee therein made, have
bargalned and sold, and by these presents do
grant and convey unto the said Herbert NJ
ThlerS, and to his executors, administrators and
assigns, subject to the restrictions as to sole and
conveyance as IN said articles made binding on
both parties, an equal undivided half share of all
and singular the abstract books owned by said
Brande at this date &c.. &c.
me article OF co-partnership referred to in
the bill of sale restricting the right of disposal is
as follows
" Art. TO- This partnership is to continue for
three years from the date of August /, 1875, but
a partner, or by mutual consent, may be con-
tlnued by the survivor for the benefit of himself
ana tle estate OF said deceased partner, until
such time as it may be deemed for the interest
OF Cne helrS and personal representatives to sell
such interest, when the same shall on such sale
terminate and it. is understood and agreed
tnag neither OF the partners is at liberty to sell
MS nall OF the abstract books to stranger, or to
any person not acceptable as person to the other
and satisfactory to the remaining partner; and
IN all cases the partner proposing to retire or
sell out shall first offer to sell his interest to the
party proposing to remain in the business, at
the bona tide price which he may have been
offered and in case of the decease of a partner,
Inc executor or administrator of such deceased
partner snail IN like manner give the survivor
the option to purchase at the best bona fde bid
which they can get for the same, and so of the
nelfS or personal representatives of said de-
ceased partner, they shall first offer the same to
| the survivor, unless person shall be found by
SAID retiring partner, executor or administrator,
heirs or personal representatives, willing to pur-
erase the interest OF such party in such abstract
| books, who shall be acceptable to the REMAINING
partner, it being the design of this agreement
| that neither party shall have the right to foiSt
| upon the other an obnoxious OF unacceptable
partner or jOint OlC7ler."
Up to the date of October 10th, 1881 I had
Deen held to literal compliance with the ar
| tlcles OF co-partnership, when the other party
concerned ignored the covenants solemnly sub
ScrlDed to and made, and, in fraud of my rights.
and on the eve of abSconding, turned over what.
ever interest he might have after settlement of
partnership equities, and the exercise of nv
rights OF option reserved as aforesaid, to his
mother. He then ran away, leaving the proper
| ty in my possession,
1t would be very natural for you to suppose
tnat my right OF property could not be Interfered
with, as owned one half bV right of creation
and had an option in the contingency which
pad happened to purchase the other half the
| property was exempt by statute, and 1 had
possession.
My former partner, it is trne, had said he
would buy, but had not done so. He had uni
formly refused to sell to me for purpose plain
enough, now.
| OF my undouDted property and It's possession
without a Judgment liability of any kind :?
Why, by prostitution Of the Courts and their pro
cess, for the accomplishment of the theft.
| knowing my law abiding character and that
force nor caJ0lery could ever make me consent
to give up my property, which was by Par, 13 OF
Section 1882 the Revised Statutes of the State
OF wisconsin absolutely exempt from Sale on
| issued from any Court or any proceedings in
aid thereof" Yet, by the perjured affidavit Of
a stranger inhibited by the Bill OF Sale and
Articles from purchasing, "a Court of Equity
Save the mark), on notice of motion of eight
| days, and proceedings running over space of
| TWO months, commands me to deliver this eX-
empt property (and if not exempt, then In my
hands by order Of the same court as garnishee,
upon the Sltpposttton that it is partnership prop
erty, to supposed Indifferent person. to be held
and managed as the right should appear had
ought to have preferred the latter alternative
aud would, had l then fully penetrated the de-
sign but had some confidence in the Court anC
unwllllngly surrendered this child of my crea
ton to It's care. for the time being. was sick
and part OF the time confined to my bed while
this was being done.
After two months more have elapsed, am
eVlcted, and the property is incontinently sole
under the hammer, as a constable having an
execution would sell a barrel tOf apples to keeT
them from spelling during its life.
From that time to this, have had neither the
property nor any palt of the money for which
| was said to be sold:
All this is done in alleged conformity to law
but In absolute violation of both its letter an(
spirit, as | can prove, if am allowed; even /
the property was not exempt, or burdened Will
| a Condition Subsequent.
In my enfeebled condition, with five othe
law suits commenced against me, am allowed
| thaTty days to appeal from the order cOnfrmin.
this inlqulty. My attorneys in Milwaukee fin
out the state Of the case a day too late to brn
the appeal, and have since advised me to re
pleyln the property. The defendant has ad
mltted to me that am rightfully entitled to tn
DOCKS, and that he paid little or nothing TO
them, But the Court to whom the case was re
TERED ignored the confessed tort, and. notwitl
standing the objections to the proceedings urge
by the plaintiff, and that he asserted his right
settle up the partnership affairs, decided tina
the erroneous rulings OF the Kenosha Circu
Court must stand; that its decision was ina
attempt OF the plaintiff to recover his propert
was an Impeachment of the order in collater;
action, not allowable under the rulings of tn
Supreme Court. and thus the matter stands
have up to this time carefully refrained frol
crltlclZmg in the public prints any thing said {
done about this or other complications precipit
ted upon me by parties, who, not content wit
me wrong done, must needs "add fuel to IL
1re," In which am now conscious have dol
myself injustice and it is due to you no lie
: than to myself that an explanation of the VIZ
| IN which the property of a citizen may be TAKE
1 from him, by the tribunals of the country,
\ spite OF exemptions, reservations or Solen
, covenants, signed and sealed, and that "
may understand the true state of the case.
lappeal to your candid judgment, which m;
yet have someforce against the edicts of organ
zed injustice.
August %, 1884, S. Y.BRANDE