Mexico weekly ledger., 1897-03-04
A Famous Case Settled.
THE WADE-RINGO SUIT ENGAGED
THE ATTENTION OF THE
COURTS FOR NEARLY
SIX YEARS.
The United States Supreme Court
Declares 1t Has No Jurisdiction
Judge Hughes Decision IN
Favor of Ringo Stands-A
Celebrated Case.

the United States-appealedto, finally,
for writ of error, the Wade side claim
ing there was a Federal question in
volved-on March 2, dismissed the
case, averring it had no jurisdiction.
In this celebrated case Charles
Wade was the plaintiff and Bert Ringo,
now deceased, defendant. On the
9th day of July, 1891, the parties to the
suit entered into a contract drawn by
Attorney w. w. Fry for the transfer
of the Wade stock of furniture, hears
es, etc., to Ringo for an invention
known as the Ringo folding bed, for
which an application for a patent had
been made by the patentee, Capt. j.
@. Buckner being a full partner with
Ringo in the invention. In other
words, Charley Wade traded his fur.
niture store and all its belongings to
Bert Ringo for the latter's undivided
one-half interest in the folding bed.
Both parties duly signed the contract
on the date above mentioned. Mr..
Ringo Immediately took possession of
the stock of furniture under the con-
tract and continued the business in
the store room now occupied by E. II.
Carter & Co. until the 18th OF Septem-
Der, 1891. On that day Mr.. Wade,
through his attorneys, by petition pre-
sented to Hon. E. M. Hughes, Circuit
Judge, in vacation, obtained a writ
of injunction restraining Mr.. Ringo
from continuing the business and
placing the stock of furniture in the
hands of r. H. Cauthorn as receiver
to run the business until the question
as to the validity of the contract was
determined. Plaintiffs complaint in
his petition was, that he was induced
to enter into the contract by reason
of false and fraudulent representations
on the part of the defendant. When
the suit was instituted plaintiff was
required to give a bond for $4,000 to
indemnify the defendant against any
loss or damage he might suffer if
plaintiff failed to sustain his suit. The
suretIes on that bond are q. Wade,
Curtis P. Wade, ]. II. Buckley, r. II.
Cauthorn, G.. N. Wales, G. d. Ferris
and John NJ. Barker.
The stock of goods and property
placed in the hands of R. H. Cauthorn
under the petition invoiced at about
5000. At the June term of the Cir
cult Court for 1892 Mr.. Cauthorn was
removed as receiver and George w.
Adams was appointed in his stead and
is still receiver. The suit was tried in
the Circuit Court at the January
term, 1892, and after taking the case
under a~dvisement Judge Hughes filed
a written opinion Diminishing plain
tin's petition and dissolving the in
Plaintiff vas granted an appeal tc
the Supreme Court of Missouri and al
that term-on March II, 1s92-was re.
quired to and gave an appeal bond in
the sum of $4,000, signed by Charles
Wade, E. P. Wade, j. Fl. Buckley.
Amelia Buckley, Joseph Moore, Nan
ME Moore, Mary Cauthorn, w. L
Rennolds, e.. ID. Ferris, G.. N. Wales
and John B. Gregory.
The case was tried in the Supreme
Court of Missouri at its April term
1894, when it was argued by j. M,
Barker and s. w. Buckley for plaintiff
and George Robertson for defendant
On the 2sth day of May, 1894, thil
court affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court, adopting the writer
opinion of Judge Hughes as its opin-
ion. This was a compliment to Judge
Hughes judgment never before giver
to a trial Judge in this State.
Plaintiff then claimed there was {
federal question involved in the case
and applied to Judge Harlan Of tn,
Supreme Court of the United States a
Washington, in vacation, for a writ O
error on the ground that the construc'
ton of a United States statute was in
volved, and obtained a writ of errol
directing the Supreme Court of Mis-
souri, to certify the case to the Stu
preme Court of the United States 10.
trial. The case vas finally reached
for hearing by the Supreme Court o
the United States and argued befor'
that court on January 26, 1897, b.
John M. Barker for Plaintiff Wade sn'
WV. Fry for Defendant Ringo. Tina
court took the case under advisement
and on March 2, 1897, decided that n
federal question was involved in tn
case and dismissed the writ of erro
because that court had no jurisdiction
? This left the case sustaining Judg
, Hughes Judgment in favor of Ringc
81 At the June term Of the Circui
Court for 1894 Defendant Ringo file
I his motion to have his damages az
sessed on the Injunction bond to tn
amount of 81, 716.6 so. The trial &c
the assessment of defendants dam
ages will come up for hearing at th
June term of the Circuit Court fo
Z, 1897.
5 The case has been one of unusui
3 interest because of the prominence {
the parties, the amount involved an
Q the fact that it is the only case eve
taken to the Supreme Court of tt
United States, the highest court undo
s our government, from this count,
8. W. Buckley and John M. Barkt
g with w. Fl. Morrow, OF Pike count
assisting in the trial court, were plail
d tiff,s attorneys and George Rober
o son and w. w. Fry defendants a
. torneys through this long legal col
b test.
Good Farm for Rent.
ITO acres with 8 room house, ne
barn, cribs and sheds, ~ miles mort
west of Benton City. Inquire OF A.
Turner, Mexico, NO., or on the prem
Uses. WIZ
Seriously Injured by . Fal.