Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1898-03-12
the LiABiLi1Y Of MERCANTILE
AGENCIES.

Commercial circles are much inter.
ested In the suit fled by =. +. Gilman
Of Omaha against Il. q. Dun 4 Co. The
amount at issue II small, $208, but the
side questions involved make the Iii.
cation the most important that has de-
veloped In the West for a number Of
years.
The petition In the District Court fled
by Gilman, a local jobber, relates that
a mercantile house Of Hiawatha, Kan,
applied to him for bill of goods on
sixty days time. He had done no bust.
ness with the Hiawatha merchant pre-
viOusly and desiring to know his finan.
clal responsibility applied to Dun for
a rating. The petition alleges that GIL.
man was Dun subscriber and entitled
to ratings from any source Of the Unit.
cd States. The rating furnished GIL.
man on this application indicated that
the Hiawatha firm was In excellent
standing and that credit could be ex.
tended to the extent Of $4,000.
At the expiration Of the sixty days,
after the bill was sold the merchant, he
refused to pay. Gilman alleges that on
investigation he found that the Hia.
watha merchant was judgment proof
and would pay nothing: neither could
he he forced to pay anything. The pc.
tition further alleges that the firm Of
Il. q. Dun by Its peculiar business
makes itself theoretically liable for the
accuracy Of the reports furnished It's
members; that 1t IL financially respOn.
slble for the same and that any loss
sustained by members Of the credit
company by reason Of the inaccuracy Of
the ratings furnished members must
be borne by Dun.
The agent Of Il. q. Dun & Co. refuses
to speak on the subject. referring the
matter to the cOmpany's attorney. This
II the view the lawyer takes Of the sit.
uatiOn:
"R. q. Dun & Co. take the position
that the reports 1t furnishes are abso-
lutely correct, and that no mistake has
been made In this case. have not had
time to go into the merits Of this partic.
ular case. however, but II any loss was
sustained II was not due to the failure
of the Dun company to perform Its con.
tract with Mr.. Gilman. However, from
the very nature Of the business Of cred.
II rating companies, they could not be
held financially responsible for losses
Of customers except In 80 far rs these
losses were sustained as result Of the
negligence of the credit company.
"The company merely undertakes to
furnish this information to the best OF
Its ability. The truth can only be ar
rived ut by known and proved methods.
OF course the agents Of the company
can be and are imposed upon occasion
ally. Certainly no court would hold n
credit company responsible when IT
does the best 1t can ana all that IL
usual In such cases. ] am sure the
case will be found favorable to the CON-
pany ] represent"
Many lawyers of Omaha assert that
II the law and the courts should favor
Gilman In this case, such companies as
Rradstreet's. Dun, Snow, Church h Co.
and many other similar firms would be
driven out of business and great cOnfu-
sion would result In the mercantile
world. The case will not come to a
trial for several months. 1t is attract
ing much attention In commercial cir.
cles, particularly as there are numer'
Gus firms who have suffered loss at
some time or another by reason of an
alleged good rating proving very bad.
All these will sue to recover from the
credit companies II Gilman wins his
| snit