Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1898-03-12
THE LIABILITY or MERCANTILE
AGENCIES.

Commercial circles are much inter.
c>trd In the suit filed by :. +. Gilman
Of Omaha against Il. q. Dun n CO. The
amount ~ issue Is small. S29i. hut the
side questions involved make the lii.
cation the most important that has de.
vrloprd In til" West for u number of
years.
The petition In the District Court filed
10y Gilman. u local iobbcr. relates that
n mercantile house of liiawatla. Kan.
applied To him for n bill of goods on
sixty days time. lie had done no bust.
ness with III" lliawa,ha merchant pre-.
vlously and desiring To know his iinan.
clal responsibility applied To Dun for
n rating. TIL" petition alleges that Gil.
man was u 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 lIawatha firm was in excellent
standing and that credit could he cN.
tended To the extent of $4,000.
At the expiration of the sixty days,
after the Hill was sold the merchant. he
refused To pay. Gilman alleges that on
investigation he found that the lila.
wntha merchant was Judgment proof
AMI would pay nothing: neither could
he he forced 10 pay anything. The pc.
tition further alleges that the firm of
II. q. Dun by It's peculiar business
makes itself theoretically liable for the
accuracy of the reports furnished It's
members: that II l. financially rcspOn.
Sblc for the same and that any loss
sustained by members of the credit
company 10y reason of the innccurncy Of
the ratings furnished members must
h. borne 10y Dun.
The agent of Il. q. Dun Il Co. refuses
10 speak on the subject, referring the
matter Ia the company's attorney. This
Is the view the lawyer takes of the sit
uation;
"R. q. Dun Il Go. take the position
that the reports 1t furnishes are nbso'
lutcly correct. and that no mistake has
been made in this ease. ] have not had
time to 90 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 10 perform It's con-
tract with Mr.. Gilman. However. from
the very nature of the business Of cred
II rating companies. they could not he
held financially responsible for losses
of customers except In 50 far rs ih"s"
losses were sustained as n result of the
negligence OF the credit company.
"rho company merely undertakes To
furnish this information Ia the best OF
its ability. The truth can only he ar
rived M 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 II
does the best II can ana all That *
usual in such cases. am sure the
case will hr found favornb" to the COM
pany represent
Many lawyers of omaha assert that
If the law and the courts should favor
Gilman in this ease. such companies aS
l,radStrcct'S, Dun, Snow, Church n Go,
and many other similar trims would he
driven out of business AMI great contu'
sion would result in III" mercantile
world. The case will not come 10 "A
trial for several months. 1t is attract
ing much attention in commercial cir
Giles, particularly aS th"r" are num"r.
Gus firms who have suffered loss n
some time or another by reason of an
alleged good rating proving very bad.
All these will 81" 10 recover from III"
credit COMPANIES II Gilman wins his
.nit