The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-18
AN AGENTS RELATION.
Supreme Courts Ruling i'm Hide
brnnd * Eugate Cnse.

In the Supreme Court, yesterday, the
judgment of the Marion Superior Court
in the case Of the Aetna Powder Company
of Chicago against Hildebrand & Fugate,
of this city, was affirmed. The latter were
the agents of the Aetna Powder Company
under a contract entered into in 1856, which
provided that Hildebrand & Fugate should
receive goods consigned to them and sell
them on commission, the firm of Hide
brand * Fugate to guarantee all sales to
the Aetna Powder Company and to make
a report every sixty days showing amount
of sales and to execute their sixty-day note
for the amount sold, less their commission
and all lawful charges. The last settle
ment was made March l. 1898. The amount
due, accc ing to the reports made May
l, July 1, Sept. l and Sept. is (the contract
was terminated on the latter day., was
Sl,69i54 The sixty-day notes had not been
executed in settlement of this amount, due
at these dates.
The firm became insolvent, and Jacob S.
Hildebrand, the senior member of the firm,
filed i'm the Superior Court petition
against James l.. Fugate, the other men,
Der of the firm, alleging their insolvency
and asking a dissolution of the partnership
and that receiver be appointed to wind
up the affairs of the partnership. y. L.
Hendrickson was appointed as such re-
ceiver. and he took possession of the
sets OF the firm.
The Aetna Powder Company appeared
and filed an intervening petition, asking to
make Edwin st. George Rogers and Philip
NJ. Hildebrand parties defendant. The petit
ton alleged that the amount due on con-
tract with the firm had been held i'm trust
by the firm, and that the petitioner had
me right TO claim it whenever 1t could be
identified. Part of ii had evidently been
ted inf IN viii 10
up the assets In the hands OF the receiver.
The reason FOR asking that Philip NJ Hill
debrand and Edwin 81. George Rogers be
made defendants was that previous TO the
appointment OF the receiver the firm had
executed a mortgage 10 them upon all the
assets, including the property that had
been purchased with moneys collected
the amount due on the contract for the
sale Of powder should be made preferred
claim, and such was the prayer of ap-
pellant in the Superior Court.
The firm of Hldebrand x Fugate de-
INJURED 10 the petition. and ia was sus-
tanned. The petitioner refused 10 plead
further, and when the general term OF the
Superior Court affirmed the special term
appealed To the Supreme Court.
The opinion YVES by Justice McCabe. He
held that the fact that the firm guaran-
teed all sales To the powder company de-
stroyed the relation OF principal and agent
between them after reports Of sales had
been made, SO far as sales reported were
concerned. and from that time the re-
latiOn Of debtor and creditor was
created. The goods assigned were q
from never We're a trust, because the COM
pany looked 20 the firm for the payment
OF all sales reported, whether collected by
the firm or not. relying upon the honesty
and soIvency of the firm TO pay
The question as 10 whether the company
could collect the debt as a creditor is not