The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-12-04

Arguments were made yesterday in
4 case Of considerable Importance in the
district court. 1t was of such import
ence that the court refused to pass upon
il until both sides will have presented
briefs in the case.
1t was the case of the Anglo-Ameri-
can Land Mortgage agency company
against the Lombard Mortgage company
for the recovery Of $1sS,00 claimed 20
be owing 10 it by the defendant COM
pany.
john A Eaton Of Kansas City ard j.
" Daugherty of this city represented
the interests Of the plaintiff and Wall
Il Brooks Of this city appeared specially
for the LON bard Mortgage company.
The unwritten and unargued issue
seems 10 be that the plaintiff company
wants a judgments against the defend
ant company so that it can proceed
against the stockholders of the defunct
Lombard Mortgage company.
The chartered headquarters OF the LON
bard company had been in Wichita and
is yet although none Of its officers or
its books are here now, and have not
been for some time. Indeed il IS said
that only one meeting OF the directors
mad been held here during the past six
years and that was a short meeting
held in 1888.
The secretary of the company, it will
be renlemb ered was l.. ID. Skinner, and
ne seems to figure very conspicuously
IN the present case. In fact he figures
in il almost 10 the point of sensational
ism.
1t appears that when the plaintiff
broughtsuit against the defendant IL be-
came necessary, according to their views
not only to get service on the secretary,
but to get service upon him here in
Wichita As Mr.. Skinner did not live
here it would be a hard matter to do
this. But to make a long story short,
Mr. Skinner came to Wichita recently
and while here ne was served.
Wall & Brooks are making a strong
attack on the alleged validity of that
service for several reasons in general
and fer one in particular. They alleSe
icOllusion between the plaintiff and the
secretary of the defendant company. In
other words. they intimate that Mr..
Skinner came to Wichita puTposely and
Understandings to be served by the plain
tiff. In proof of this they allege that
Mr.. Skinner officed with the plaintiff com
pany at Kansas City, in the office of
their attorney, and that when he came
attorney who brought the suit and caus-
ed the process 10 be served on him here
at that time. This very attorney, they
allege, was John A. Eaton. the attorney
in charge of this case at the present
time. They also aliege that II is record
ed in certain dispositions made by l.. d.
Skinner that he acknowledged that he
knew, at the time he left Kansas City,
that he would be served with the pro-
cess in question while at Wichita.
AIessrs. Wall & Brooks contend among
a great many other things that the Sec
rotary of one company cannot enter
collision with a creditor company
against the legal rights and interests
of his own company and that hence the
service upon the Lombard company,
through Skinner, is null and void.
Mr. Eaton contends that there was no
COLLISION whatever. that he is willing To
make a professional statement TO that
effect or go upon the stand, but that
the fact that Skinner officed with him
and rode down to Wichita with him
when the service was made, were coinci-
dents, and nothing more.