The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-06-24
SHAFFER GETS IT ALL
HE WINS THE SUIT INVOLVING
STREET RAILROAD COMMISSION.
Any Part of the 100000, Says
Judge Baker.

After hot fight for the possession of
the last $4,000 of the 100000 commission
which Fl. Sellers Mckee and Murray A.
Werner agreed to pay if the Citizens
Street-rairoad Company should be turned
over to them at the price they. offered, j.
C. Shaffer yesterday won his case. He had
already received $4,000 when A. L. Mason,
attorney for Messrs. Mckee and Werner,
and president of the company, put in
claim for SIS 900 the ground that he
had furnished the purchasers and was en-
titled. therefore, to % per cent. of the
commission. Much space was devoted by
all the papers some months ago to the
arguments in the Shaffer-Mason case. Al
bert j. Beverage appeared for the former,
and Miller, Winter e. Elan and w. II.
sBatta for the latter. Messrs. Beverage,
Miller and Winter argued the case, which
was bitterly contested before Judge Baker.
of the federal court. Meanwhile Messrs.
Mckee and Werner had paid the $4,000
into court to be held pending the de-
cison in the case.
Mr. Mason contended. in brief, that Mr..
Shaffer understood he expected a part of
the commission to be paid, and that Mr..
Shaffer had virtually agreed to divide with
yielding a portion of his commission, and
claimed he had never in any way given
Mr.. Mason TO understand that he would
divide. He said he had all along thought
Mr.. Mason's compensation would be as
attorney for Messrs Mckee and Werner.
There was nothing in his hundred thou
sand-dollar contract with the purschasers
Of the road referring TO compensation for
Mr.. Mason. The latter claimed he put
his faith in Mr.; Sha ne Sh word: and and re-
fused Mr.. McKee'S request, just prior TO
the drawing of the contract that he give
Mr.. Mason slice Of the commission. The
the arguments somewhat acrid in their
character. so much so, in fact, that Judge
Baker had to take a hand several times
and stop the personalities in which the at
torneys were INDUCING.
After giving the entire matter careful
consideration the Judge yesterday decided
that Mr.. Shaffer was entitled to the entire
commission of 100000 for having negotiated
the sale of the. road to Messrs. Mckee and
them. He holds that Mr.. Mason Is entitled
to a reasonable fee for his services as at
torney. The costs in the litigation, he de-
cides, must be paid by Messrs. Mckee,
Werner and Mason.
THE COURTS CONCLUSIONS.
In his decision Judge Baker. after stating
the facts In the case, gives the following
as the conclusions he has reached:
/. The cross complainant Mason was and
is practicing attorney at law; and the de-
PENDANT Shaffer was and is a business man,
largely engaged In speculative enterprises.
and having experience in the management
and sale OF street-railway property. ana his
er because OF his supposed ability 10 negotl-
ate for them the purchase OF controlling
interest in the stock OF the Citizens Street
railroad Company, of indianapolis.
2 The services of said Mason were en-
gagged by Mckee and Werner because of his
supposed ability 20 aid them in making the
purchase as their legal adviser, and the
services rendered by him, and about said
negotiations and purchase as their legal
adviser. were such as were ordinarily rem
att for
like circumstances.
g. Mckee and Werner had no knowledge
during the. pending of said negotiations,
nor until the latter part of May, 1883, that
there was any claim on the part OF cross
complainant Mason that there was. or was
derstanding between himself and said
Shaffer, by which he was to have and re-
ceive fair and equitable share OF the COM
mission which Mckee and Werner had con-
tracted and agreed TO pay said Shaffer.
but it was the belief and understanding of
said Mckee and Werner that said Mason
was in their employ as their attorney and
legal adviser, and not otherwise.
4. Mckee and Werner understood at and
before they entered into the contract of
commission mentioned therein had been
earned by said Shaffer alone, and they con-
tracted and agreed TO pay him said sum
on the distinct understanding on their part
that he alone was entitled to receive the
same for his release and benefit.
5. Mckee and Werner are Justly indebted
re yaue Of his ner thes
attorney in and about said negotiations
and purchase.
6. 1t is not proved by a preponderance OF
evidence that the cross-complainant Mason
is entitled to receive any part OF the COM
mission agreed to be paid to said Shaffer
by the contract Of Nov. II, 1892 and the
court therefore, finds that the whole
amount of the commission mentioned in
the contract belongs and is due and pay,
able to said Shaffer.
I. Said sum of 10000. by the. terms OF
said contract, became due and payable
March O. 1893 and said Shaffer is entitled
to receive the sum of $4,000 remaining
unpaid together with per cent. interest
thereon from March 8, 1893, TO this time,
amounting to SIC. 933S So
s. The costs in this case ought TO be paid
by the complainants, Werner and Mckee,
and complainant Mason.
8. Let decree be entered eonformatory
TO the above findings.