The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-13
THE $4,000 NOTE CASE
The Complicated Affairs of Many
Business Transactions.
HYDE AGAINST DURAND
A Brief Statement of What Is Involved
in the Litigation = The Affairs of
Freyschlag, Huffman 81 Co.
Brilliant Legal Talent.

II The most important suit that has ever
been. tried in Anaconda is now on trial
in the district court. Not only is the
amount at stake large being $780, 000
but the suit is contested by several of
the brightest and most able lawyers in
the state. Moreover, the parties and
the principal witnesses have been for
a number of years the most prominent
figures. outside of their mining mag
mates. in the business world of Philips
burg and of Granite county.
The suit has to do largely with the
affairs of Freyschlag, Huffman & Co,
and their successors. This was the
largest commercial concern that ever
operated in that county 1t carried a
stock valued at 100000 or more. and
was doing a fiourishing business in
Philipsburg, Granite and Combination
when it went to the wall in the crash
of 1898.
The suit is. brought by Joseph A.
Hyde and James II. King, respectively
the president and cashier of the First
National bank of Philipsburg 1t is
suit on a promissory note, dated about
a year ago, signed by Frank Durand.
the defendant, payable to the First Ma
sional bank of Butte one month after
date. The note is endorsed by the
plaintiffs, who allege that they signed
as sureties. and were compelled by the
failure of the defendant to take 1t up
when due, to pay it themselves and
they now demand that the defendant
reimburse them for the payment made
in his behalf. The defendant does not
dispute the note or that it is valid
obligation, except that in his testimony
yesterday he testified that he signed
the note at the instance of the plaintiffs
at Philfpsburg, suppoSing at the time
that he was signing note payable to
the plaintiffs. That nothing was said at
the time about making a note payable
to the First National bank of Butte,
and that the mistake was due to his
failure to read the printed portion of
the note, where the name of the Butte
bank appeared. He testified that the
note was the outgroWth of transactions
between himself and the plaintiffs with
which the Butte bank had nothing to
do, and was in renewal or by way of
substitution for certain other .rotes held
against him by the plaintiffs, said notes
having been given him on the purchase
by him of the plaintiffs interest in the
mercantile business and property form
erly owned by Freyschlag. Huffman &
Co, above mentioned and which had
been bought at sherffs sale by J. M.
Merrill, as the agent of an association
formed to make such purchase This
association consisted of Josiah Merrill,
James Patten, L. c. Freyschlag and
Joseph A. Hyde, one of the plaintiffs.
The defendant testified that Mr.. Mer-
rill, as the agent of these purchasers,
made, before the purchase, the follow
ing written contract with him, which
was yesterday introduced in evidence:
Whereas, The property of Freysch-
lag. Huffman 81 Co. is about to be at
tached by various creditors and will
doubtless be sold under executions; and
and
Whereas, 1t is the intention OF Jo-
siah M Merrill to become the purchaser
at such sales, provided he can obtain
nrirp.
and
Whereas If he becomes the pur-
chaser, il is his desire to dispose of
said property to the best advantage;
and
Whereas, He does not wish to devote
his own time and attention to the dis
posal of said property.
Now, therefore this agreement be-
tween Josiah M. Merrill and Frank Du-
rand, witnesseth
THAT If said property of the said
Freyschlag. Huffman & Co. is sold I'M
der executions said Merrill shall pur-
chase the same if he can reasonably do
so at a reasonable rate.
THAT if said Merrill shall become the
purchaser he shall employ the said Du-
rand as manager of said business until
said property is disposed of, al rea-
sonable salary.
That after said Merrill shall have
realized $4,000 from the net proceeds |
of the property, he shall pay said Du-
rand one-fifth of the net proceeds there
after received.
Said sDurand, In consideration of the |
foregoing, promises and agrees to act |
as manager for the compensation above |
stated.
Signed, Josiah NJ Merrill, Frank |
Durand.''
The defendant testified that in pur- /
suance of this contract, he became en-
titled TO share in the profits of the I
concern to the amount of $1,000 which /
said purchasing association never paid t
him. That the plaintiffs finally bought /
out the other members of this purchas- /
ing association, being fully aware of his I
interest in the property by virtue of the /
contract above quoted, and are bound |
to carry out said contract. He there
fore claims set-off of SIT 900 against |
the note sued on. Mr.. Hyde however
denies that he belonged to the associa-
ton which bought the property, or that /
Mr.. Merrill, in making the purchase, /
was his agent. He admits having sub
sequently purchased the int erests of
certain members Of such association,
which he afterwards sold to the defend
ant, who also purchased the interests of
the other members. He takes the POSI-
tion that the defendant. in buying out
the members of the association. became
possessed of all the profits of the bust
ness and can have no further claim for
profits as against any of them.
The defendant. in addition to his |