St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-03
WHEAT BUYER DANIEL MAHONEY
INSTITUTES SUIT AGAINST AN
ELEVATOR COMPANY.
DEMANDS $4,000 INDEMNITY
FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED THROUGH
THE WORKINGS OF THE GRAIN
COMBINE.
WAS, IN EFFECT, BLAckLIsrED
Because of His Refusal to Make
Good the Leakage of n TumbIe-
Down Warehouse.

The bondage in which the buyers
for the so-called line elevator COM
panies are held is well eXemplifled in
the case of Daniel Mahoney, who has
just begun suit for $4,000 damages
against the Cargill Elevator company.
| The grounds are attempted eXtortion
and inability to secure employment be-
cause of the claims Of this company.
The suit has been instituted in Rem
vile county by John L. Townley, Of
st. Paul, Mahoney's attorney. 1t is
alleged that Mahoney bought wheat
| during two seasons for the Cargill
company at Howard, S. D., and that the
elevator Of the defendants at tina.
point was sadly out Of repair, and
allowed the wheat and other grain to
leak out through cracks in the floors
and bins. He kept the company in
formed of the condition Of the ware
house, but they did not repair the
building, although they promised to do
SO, hoping to be able to get along with
the old building for another year.
They did get along with it, but they
wanted Mahoney to pay $443.49 for
grain that had disappeared. He claimed
that it was under the building, and
that it had been lost through the neg
ligence of the company in that they
had not repaired the warehouse, though
they had knowledge of it's condition,
and had repeatedly promised to "fix it
up" Then Mahoney secured employ
ment with the Interstate Grain
company at Louisburg, in this state,
and made application to the Fidelity
and Casualty company for a bond guar
anteeing the Interstate company
against any loss through dishonesty
or unfaithfulness on his part. The
bond company denied his application
on account Of the claim of the Car
gill company, and both the Interstate
and the bond company refused to ac-
! cept private bond, no matter how
we'll it might be secured Then Ma
! honey took the representative of the
Fidelity and Casualty company to How
ard and they examined the warehouse,
| finding the condition to be what Ma
honey had claimed, and the grain, al
! legged to have been converted by him
to his own use, to be under the build
| ing, matted together and worthless.
| The agent Of the bond company ap-
peared to be satisfied that Mahoney
was blameless, and that the fault lay
with the Cargill company, in that they
had failed to repair the warehouse and
put it in condition to hold the grain
without loss from leakage His sur
mise was only true in a degree, for the
Cargill company withdrew it's claim
for loss of barley and flax, amounting
to $30S.64. They insisted, however, upon
!
$134.S5, and Mahoney refused to pay
this sum or any part of it. He sup
| posed the Cargill company had with
drawn the entire claim, as the agent
Of the bond company appeared to be
entirely satisfied that the wheat had
been lost through leakage and not
through any fault Of Mahoney's; but
he was previously mistaken, as the
subsequent acts Of the elevator and
! bond company proved.
1t is stated in the complaint that
Mahoney entered the service of the
Cargill company on Aug. Is, 1892. as
wheat buyer at the company's grain
warehouse at Howard, S. D. From
that time until July 1, 1893, he trans
acted, as the company's agent at that
point, all it's business in the purchase
and shipment Of grain and the care of
! its property. 1t is alleged that the eIe-
vator was in bad condition, and that
1T was so badly in need of repairs that
the company referred to it as "shan-
ty" which they hoped to be able to
! get along with for another season
The grain ran through and onto the
ground under the building and Ma
honey says that he repeatedly notified
the company that the grain had leaked
out, and that he had gathered up as
much OF 1t as he could and returned it
to the bins of the warehouse These
conditions existed during the period
OF his service with the company. dur
ing the time the house was kept open.
Ihe company expressed it's intention
OF liking up the building if it kept
it open another year.
On Aug. 1, 1893, Mahoney entered in
to new contract with the Carei1l
company to serve as it's wheat buyer
at the same place during the season of
30 "a. Inc complaint again sets forth
ms honest and faithful service and the
rickety condition of the elevator which
was ADMITTED by the elevator company.
Inc second term of contract expired on
June To- 1884. 1t is further stated in the
complaint that the Cargill comnanv
hetu frequent nOClce OF the poor cOndj-
ton and dlsrepair of the grain house
which rendered it unfit for the mr..
poses of receiving and storing grain
| therein, as the grain so stored was ia
BILE to waste through the cracks in the
! floors and elsewhere. 1t is alleged that
! large amounts Of wheat barley. fIax
and other grain belonging to the com
pany leaked through the cracks of the
elevator and became wasted and de-
| stroyed, and of these facts the com
pany was repeatedly notified by Ma
honey. In common with all other
agents of the company Mahoney was
required to pay the premium on the
bond of a surety company which would
indemnify the elevator company
against loss through Mahoney's mis-
conduct or dishonesty while in it's
employ. The surety company was the
Fidelity and Casualty, and the Cargill
company, after the expiration of Ma
honey's second period of service, pre-
sented to it claim for shortages in
wheat, barley and flax amounting to
| SAB 49,
The complaint alleges that this claim
was maliciously, falsely, wrongfully
! and unlawfully made against the plain
| tiff for the DurDOSe Of extortipc Y,oopa1,