The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1888-01-21
DANIEL WELLS WINS.
Decision of the Supreme Court in ,

teCISiOn III lne celebrated case OF Daniel
Wells, Jr., against Peter McGeoch.
which grew out of the failure of the
famous lard deal, in Chicago in June.
1888. The decision reverses the iudp-
ment OF the county court OF Milwaukee,
County, and remands the cause with di-
recuons to its successor-the superior
court-to render Judgment for plaintiff.
Wells, for SlSl, ,640.63 and interest there
on at per ce ut. per annum from Ju;y
Il, 1885, TO the cate of the Judgment, by
such court. The action was brought by
Wells TO recover sum of money which
he alleged that he induced 60 pay
by means of certain false and fraudulent
misre presentations made by McGeoch
concerning the transactions incident to
the attempted lard corner of 1888, and
the subsequent settlements. Defense
denied the fraud charged and maintained
that the settlement w2s an honest one.
1t also set up that the transactions had
by the parties as partners which they
thus settled, were ILLEGAL and that there
fore neither party could have relief.
THE FAILURE
of McGeoeh, Everingham & Co., of
which firm Wells was partner, oc-
Cured June Is, 1888 and July II, 1888
after the assets and liabilities of that
firm had been placed in the hands OF a
receiver for settlement and after such
receiver had determined that by the
entire appropriation of the assets and
sl50,000 additional, he could effect a
compromise with the creditors of the
firm at the rate of 30 cents on the dol
lar, and thereby liQuidate all indebted
ness and liabilities of the firm-a con-
tract was entered into by Wells and
McGeoch, whereby it was agreed that
IN consideration of the payment by
Wells of 500, ,000 to the National Bank
Of America in Chicago. 100000 TO the
National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee,
| $4,000 to the Milwaukee Nation.
al Bank of Wisconsin, and 1925,
| coo to the Wisconsin Marine &
Fire Insurance Bank of Milwaukee-in
all S675, 5,000-(the amount being the
value of notes for which Wells and Nc
Geoch were jointly liable, either as
! maker or endorser)-alsO the payment
/ of 1925. 900, (the-one half of the S450,00O
| by the receiver, found necessary TO
make the compromise settlement)-
also the REIMBURSEMENT of his right to
$l00. .455.39 which, at the time of the
failure, appeared iE the books of Nc
| GeOch, Everingham 4 Co. to his credit
as his share of the profits of
| THE WHEAT CORNER
OflS62 and other deals, he should be re-
lSStSCtI NUN an IidiillS anu OcllldutlS VI
| McGeoch, Eyeringham q Co., and all lIa-
| bilities to creditors and should be indem-
nlted against all losSesWhich might there
| after occur from any failure of McIeoch
| to per Orm the stIpulatlOus of the con-
| tract and in effecting full settlements.
L his agreement the trial court held was
| an illegal one; that the considerations
named therein pertained to profits and
| losses made in the purchase and sale of
| futures and III corners, and attempts to
corner the market in various cOmmodI-
| ties, and that such were gambling con-
| tracts and therefore void. 1t also held
| that Wells was obliged TO trace his title
| and right to his alleged claim through
such illegal transactions and hence
| could not recover.
| Much testimony was given on the
| trial directed to questions of fact upon
| which the findings of the last named
| court were silent. Wells, through his
| attorney, asked the court to make addi-
| tiOnal findings upon large number of
| questions thus omitted, whereupon that
court ruled that the request should have
been made before the findings and de-
| cision had been rendered and filed
The court refused to pass upon these
additional questions, and the case was
appealed. Upon this point the supreme
which it is the duty OF this court to file
! findings of fact cannot know in advance
| OF such filing what they will be and
| hat therefore the party could not be
| put III default because of his failure to
| indicate TO the court IN advance, the
specific facts on which findings were de-
siled.
LOSSES OF THE DEAL.
In IS opinion the supreme court finds
such omitted facts, from the testimony,
and on such facts bases its reversal OF
the Judgment of the trial court that it
finds that the total loss incurred by the
failure was g, ,352, ,026.52; that the part
ners were released by the compromise
settlement with the creditors from the
payment Of 1913, 1915; that there re-
manned to be paid by both parties ST.
S3S, 1876.
In additional to such findings this
court finds that during the negotiations
between Wells and McGeoch which re-
suited in the contract OF July II, 1888,
McGeoch misrepresented to Wells the
amount which was still to hlS credit on
the books of McGeoch, Everingham q
Co. as the profits of the wheat corner
of 1882 and other deals; that he falsely
stated such amount to be 500, 1853,
whereas it was in fact $239, sos. 70; that
McGeoch represented his investment in
the lard deal to be 5000 whereas he
had actually invested 5473b90 50; that
McGeoch overstated his payments and
investments $226, 800. Al and understated
the investments of Wells $l39, ,352.7S and
that as the result Of such misrepresenta-
tions there was a difference in his favor
of sos, ,662l9.
The supreme court held that Wells
should recover all that he paid by rea-
son of such misstatements, in excess of
what he would have been required to
pay on the agreed basis had McGeoch
represented the investments truthfully.
Therefore. to reimburse Wells for the
CONSEQUENCES OF THE STATEMENTS
of NcGeoch, the latter should pay Wells
one-half of the 1865, $50 10, less any sum
necessary to be deducted in order to
make Wells payment equal the amount
he ought to pay had a true account of
the deal and investments been stated.
This would have placed Wells in the
same position he would have been in
had NcGeoch represented their invest
ments truly. Such true statement would
have been as follows: There remained
10 be paid by both parties in losses and
liabilities, 81, ,S3S. 1876; one-half of this
amount is S9l9 Pass. Wells, by the
contract of July Il, for indemnity against
to his just share of the liza
bilities $4,000; therefore, of the
entire loss he ought TO have paid S94,-
249.3S. He actually paid, owing to mis-
representation 81. l39, sos. II and in so do
ing overpaid Sl95,55S.7o. McGeoch
ought to have paid SS94, 2493S. He paid
only s69S, ,690.54 and therefore his de-
tiCiency was $l95, 5,55S. 79-equal in
amount to Wells overpayment. The
court also found that there remained in
the lands OF the receiver, after all de-
inauds had been paid. 81, ,s36.3S. This |
II held would have belonged to the re-
NAMING members of the firm in equal |
shares but for the contract OF July II, |
1883, and therefore in the accounting |
Slo,glS,l 10 should be deducted from |
Wells overpayment as stated, as the |
maximum limit of his recovery. This |
amount is SISl ,640.63-the face of his |
Judgment directed.