St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-06-22
ARE WHEAT TICKETS GOOD
A Subject That Is Fraught With Interest
to Farmers.
A CASE BEARING ON IT.
Who Got Pr0dells Wheat and Who Is
Liable to Him For Its
Value.

Are wheat ticktes good in Minnesota?
Is the trite and once true saying, ''as
good as old wheat" to be knocked out
OF the farmers category? From case
now pending in the courts, it looks very
much that way. The time was when
wheat tickets were just as good as cash
all over the state, and formed as reliable
basis for financial operations as gov
eminent bonds, but tickets have taken
a tumble in the market, and some of the
banks are beginning to scan them as
never wheat tickets were scanned be-
fore. If this should continue the far
mer's faith in law, equity and wheat
will be rudely shaken, and the beauti-
full fabric built up by the wheat grow
ers' confidence will come rafting about
his ears. The trouble grows out of a
suit decided in Renville, by Judge Buck
ham, who was appointed when John S.
PlllSbury was governor, and which is
now pending in the supreme court.
John Cheatham, of Minneapolis, is the
plaintiff, and Ehle & Co. and G. A. Pills
bury & Co. are the defendants. The
story runs like this:
The elevator at Renville was in 1856
etho pa VI 1861 luIl III GiiC VI LILLY
| " Co., and was known as PillSbury
elevator. Charles PrOdell, farmer in
that vicinity, during the fall of 1856
stored about All bushels of wheat in the
elevator, receiving tickets therefor. The
price of wheat was low, and not wishing
to sell, but needing money, he borrowed
from John Cheathan, giving him the
wheat tickets as collateral security. In
June, 1887, Ehle failed, but in the mean
time all of the wheat had been shipped
at the elevator. presumably to the Pills
bury mills at Minneapolis. Prodell and
Cheatham demanded the wheat of Ehle
| and threatened an Indictment, but he
replied that the Pillsburys took it and
he could not help it. The Piilburys
were notified and replied, in a let
ter dictated by c. a. Pillsbury, that Pro
dell and Cheatham had no legal claim
against them and refused to pay. The
| Pillsburys denied that they got the
wheat, but admitted that the got So, 425
| bushels of wheat out OF that elevator,
| or all but 420 bushels that was shipped
| from it. They also denied that they
had any interest in the elevator. Ehle
says the Pillsburys got the Prodell
wheat, but as this part Of the case never
came to trial, the difference of testimony
was not settled. AT any rate PrOdel's
which Cheatham loaned the money,
were apparently worthless. An action
was begun against Ehle d Co. and
PillSbury d Co. and came on for trial
before Judge Buckham. The Pills
burys sent down an attorney and after
| an argument, the court decided that
Pillsbury IL Co. were not liable. The
plaintiffs were entitled to recover from
Ehle, but Ehle had nothing. Touching
the Pillsbury liability, the case will be
carried to the supreme court.
The important point is not whether
the Pillsburys got the wheat, or who did
get it, but whether whoever did get it,
| and not Ehle. is liable to Prodell or
Cheatham. There has been a universal
| feeling of security all over the state on
the subject of wheat tickets, and when
it goes out that such tickets are not
good unless the elevator is responsible.
the system loses its foundation stones.
| Cheatham says the matter is now Great
ing great deal CT talk throughout
| Southern Minnesota, and that already
some of the banks are refusing to lend
money on tickets. The outcome is one
of Importance and will he noted with
interest.