Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-04-22


Carey q Co Tho Sheep Case De-
cided.
In Part Two of the Circuit Court,
Tudss PAUL, an important order was
uttered in the suit OF the City of
Wheeling against Paige, Carey & Co.
c;rv Solicitor Frank w. Nesbitt and
fy-Solicitor T. S. Riley moved the
Court for leave to pay into the Court
10 the credit of Paige, Carey & Co.
Slf.44S.09. Leave was granted by the
Court. and later in the afternoon the
amount was paid into the hands OF
Lawrence +. Sands, general receiver OF
the Court, to be held by him subject
10 further order of the Court. On
motion Of counsel for certain creditors
ri Paige. Carey &, Co., the Court added
the statement that the payment Of
said money shall not be taken to con-
c,ude any Of the parties to the suit,
as 10 the amount for which the city of
Wheeling is liable.
George r. e. Gilchrist, special COM
missioner of the Court, filed his re-
r0rt. which was very voluminous. 1t
lcopired twelve bound volumes, includ-
ing 1853 pages Of typewriter mat
TER. The report was also accompa-
MED by S31 exhibits, which will be
filed in the Office Of the Clerk of the
County Court. Judge PAUL directed
that Commissioner Gilchrist be paid
81 900 on account upon his bill for SER
vices
The effect of the order handed down
Yesterday is not TO settle the amount
due by the city TO Paige, Carey & Co.,
as the sum OF $500 is charged against
The firm by the city for building a re-
aiming wall, which is not provided for
IN the contract between the city and
Paige. Carey & Co., and which will
probably be involved in litigation.
The city is also charged with interest,
which it does not concede.
Following is synopsis of the COM
missiCners report:
III
S16,340 40.
Amount of money in hands of gem
eral receiver Of Court, paid by Lewis
Steenrod $961.4S.
Amount owing by Lewis Steenrod,
April IL, 1898, $9614S
Total assets OF Paige Carey & Co.,
S2013675; total debts, $70,31541.
Claim Of Alfred Caldwell, executor
ol VIM. S. Goshorn's will, not allowed.
Mechanics lien, aggregating SO 1858
not sustained.
Oajers given to creditors Of Paige,
Carey & Co., aggregating S21 ,531. "a,
treated as invalid SO far as they create
preferences, and held to be assignments
or all the creditors of Paige, Carey &,
20.
Garnishments of the city of Wheel
ing, amounting to $27 ,09463, not sus-
tanned.
Garnishments Of Lewis Steenrod,
amounting to $19,S20.3S, not sustained.
Total amount of claims preferred by
reason of levies upon certain personal
property belonging to Paige, Carey &,
Co.. 6,141.45.
Subject to payment of the costs, the
sum of $13, $3.50 is distributable pro
rata amongst creditors of Paige, Carey
& Co., whose claims aggregate S64-
Ia as
The report of Commissioner Gil
christ shows that on July 80, 1890, the
city of Wheeling entered into an agree
ment with Paige, Carey & Company
for the erection of the Main street stone
bride; that subsequently, through the
death of one partner and the disap-
pearance of another, and resultant
financial difficulties, the firm of Paige,
Carey & Co. vas compelled to an
nounce that it was unable to complete
the work of it's contract. On April u,
1892, the city, through its contractors,
Hallock Brothers, undertook the work
Of completing the bridge. The cost
Of building the bridge was largely in
excess of what seemingly would have
been necessary if the work had been
done by Paige, Carey e Company.
On November IS, 1892, the city of
Wheeling brought a suit in chancery
in the Circuit Court, against the sur
wing partners of the firm in which it
admitted an Indebtedness of $11 ,44S. %,
and prayed that the Court would as
certain in what manner the said money
SHOULD be disbursed, and to whom, the
money in the hands of the city having
been garnisheed by creditors of the
nrm. The matter was referred by the
Court TO G. r. E. Gilchrist. special
commissioner, TO ascertain the amount
Que by the city and the claims against
range, Carey & Company.
The difference between the amount
admitted to be due by the city and the
amount claimed TO be due by the COM
missioner, is accounted for by the eX-
cess OF the actual cost over the esti-
mated cost Of the work remaining to
ee done under the contract; the charg-
ilS by the city of the cost of the Cos
norm retaining wall; and the charging
10 The city of interest on the amount
tamltted to be due. The city makes
me claim that under the contract it is
AoI bound to pay the balance of the
money until after the completion of
me work on the bridge. The city, in
lac' has denied its liability for any
interest, the claim being that since the
oompietlon of the bridge the city has
Ho' known to whom the balance due
should be rightfully paid.
ne commissioner ascertained the
assets Of Paige, Carey & Co. to be the
Jun due by the city, with interest, and
we amount arising out Of the proceeds
sale Of certain personal property
r. ieo upon by creditors of the firm
ne commissioner has no reason to
NOIOr the correctnacc Of tbo o,,,ou,t