The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-24
TOO MUCH LAW ABOUT IT
The ChauYln-Pant Attachment Again
Before the Courts.
ATTORNEYS CHEW THE RAG
Here Is a Case That is About as
Badly Mixed Up as Any That
the Record Contains in
Silver Bow.

BUTTE, Feb. 23.--The Chauvin-Fant at.
| tachment, about which columns have
been Published, again occupied the atten
| ton of Judge Speer all afternoon and al
an evening session of court lasting til
| after o'clock. The matter had been sci
| for hearing on an order citing Attorney
| Shelton, who appeared for the attaching
| creditors, to appear and show cause why
the suit should not DO dismissed and the
attachment dissolved, the Omaha Up
| holstering company, in whose name tho
action had been brought. having GAINED
that the attorney had not been auth orizeI
| to bring the suit.
Mr.. Shelton, however, mad retained At.
| torney John Forbls to help him out of the
hole, and he took the other side by ur-
prise by filing an application for n subj Ii
tuition of plaintiffs, and letting the Oma ia
firm out of the case. This application was
argued first, and gave rise TO many fin Q
points OF law and some very plain talk on
| the part OF the attorneys.
The attorney for the attaching parties
was accused Of securing the country
over" for claims against the Chauvin-
FAINT company for the purpose of closing
out the company, which was emphatically
denied, and then Mr.. Forbis retaliated
by stating that Mr.. Chauvin had been
connected with three failures in Butte
and was, therefore, not entitled to SYM
pathy. Mr.. ForDls also claimed that tho
Omaha company was responsible for any
actions of It's attorney whether right or
wrong, and If the attachment was DIS
missed on the stipulation of the company
II would be made to suffer for the damage
sustained by the other creditors whose ac-
counts were assigned to ;he Omaha firm.
Mr.. Forbis was interrupted by MIR.
ODonnell, who wanted to- know IT II was
not "A fact that the Kennedy Furniture
n..1 Lot h..I
the suit against the Chauvin-Fant com
pany and If Mr.. Forbs was not employed
by them. MIR. Forbis denied II.
The attorneys for the plaintiff filed an
affidavit in support of their motion TO file
an amended and supplemental complaint
in which 1t is stated that ailiant had at
the time of the commencement of the suit
received claims for collection against the
Chauvin-Fant Furniture company from
i've or SIX parties, aggregatlng Sl,o23.
These claims we're itemlzcd and sworn to
by the several creditors. Among them
was one from the Omaha Upholsterng
company. The claims were united for
convenience in bringing suit in the name
of this party as "A nominal plaintiff, and
as a trustee TO prosecute the claims to
judgment for the benefit and use of the
real parties IN interest, and n writ of at
tachment was issued and served to secure
their payment. The Omaha Upholstering
company, after placing the claim in the
attorneys hands for collection, and urging
suit, at once, accepted payment itself and
failed to notify ITS attorney. They then,
after the suit was instituted, 1t is alleged,
entered into a collision with the defend
ant and the subsequent attaching credi-
tors and asked for n dismissal of the
action. not only as to their claim, but for
all others for the payment of which suit
was instituted in their name. To do this,
IL is claimed, would be to destroy the
security for the payment of the other
claims, obtained by the attachment, and
would render the other claims valueless
for the reason that all of the property of
the Chauvin-Fant company Is now at
tached for much more than its value. The
attorneys therefore ask that the name of
some one of the other creditors be substi-
tuted as plaintiff.
The court took the matter under advise
ment and announced that decision
would be rendered on Monday morning.