New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-07
THE COURTS.
A CELEBRATED CASE DECIDED.


NrwyoRK MERCHANTS LOSE THEIR SUIT
AGAINST JORDAN. MARSH CO.. OF BOSTON.
Tho decision OF the United states Supreme Court
On the celebrated case OF Schultz Bros d Bath OF
New-York against Jordan Marsh d. Co.. OF bosooh'
has been received in this city from Washington An
was one OF number Of suits. involving over S2oo
600 which different cloak houses In this city broughC
on the theory that they had sold and delivered tne
Goods in controversy TO the Boston firm, payment
for which was resisted on the ground substantially
that the goods had been Struggled into the Boston
house by fraudulent arrangement between the
Nev-York houses and John ii. Hewes, the buyer Tor
the cloak department OF Jordan Marsh az CO., thau Iie
goods should be secretly gotten into the house. ana
knowledge thereof should be kept from Jordan MARSH
Co.. with the further understanding that Hewcs
would finally By the Use of falsely dated invoices,
pbtain reimbursement for the New-fork hr1ns' Ma
thanei Myers OF No as Wall-st. conducted the case
from the beginning for Jordan Marsh d Co. Inc
case OF Schultz Bros d Bath was first tried several
years ago in tile United states Court in this city,
and resulted in the plaintiffs defeat 1t was their ap
peal TO the United states Supreme Court that has now
been decided against them. On the original trial
was proven that the goods were shipped 10 Boston,
we're received in the establishment Of Jordan Marsh
Co.. mingled and sold with their other goods ana e
proceeds turned to them, and the plalnths con-
tended that whether there was any fraudulent coiiu-
sion or not Jordan, Marsh & Co. we've absolutely bound
40 nav The United states Supreme Court. In unan-
imous opinion takes different view. 1t says among
other things:
"a party cannot be compelled to buy property which
ne does not wish TO buy; and trick of the vendor
conspirng with agent Of such party by which pos
session is placed in him, creates his part contract
of purchase Nor is any cOnrac. al purchase created
even II also appear that unknown to the party, his
agent who has entered In this wrongful combination
has sold the property and put the proceeds into his
princlpaps possession. The verdict of the jury was
fully justified by the testimony. 1t would be need
less waste of time to develop the various details Of
the plan BY which the plaintiffs and the agent Of the
defendants sought 10 take the goods of the plaintiffs.
mt them I'm the store OF the defendants incorporate
Them with the general Of their goods and
payment ont of the funds of the defendants without
their knowledge
The plan worked successfully so far as regarded
the introduction of the goods into the store OF the
defendants without their knowledge but Hewes was
not so successful In securing payment 80 that after
nearly year and a quarter, over 100000. according
TO tho prices agreed upon between Hewes and the
plaintiffs fox goods thus transmitted was still unpaid
II is true that the plaintiffs and their agent by whom
the arrangement in the first instance made, denied
the existence OF any such agreement. Upon this
question OF fact the verdict Of the jury would be con
elusive; and Notwithstanding their denial the whole
conduct Of the business rs developed by their own
testimony makes strongly in favor Of the ruthfuness
OF Iewcs In respect to the TRANSACTION. The verdict
OF the Jury proprtly responded to the testimony.
The judgment right and it is Affirmed