Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-07-02
JUDGMENT AGAINST ARMOUR.
Rusult OF a Noted Case Has Bearing
on the Famous RaIya Case.

New York. July Judgment has.
been entered in the county court for
S., 706 against Jonathan o. Armour, a
surviving partner of Armour & Co., of
Chicago, in favor OF j. e. Cannon on an
assigned claim of Beaumont & Nease,
of Sioux City, Ia, for non-delivery of
pork loins.
Sioux City. July 2-This result in this
case Of Beaumont & Nease against Ar
mour & Co.. in a New York court. is re-
|garded by the attorneys of the Ralya
Market Company, Of Sioux City, as in
lcreasing the likelihood of their getting
judgment in their suit for $4,000 dam
ages against the great Chicago meat
firm which has been commenced in this
city. In some particulars the Ralya
case is even stronger than that of Beau
mont & Nease, which plaintiffs assigned
to ]. E. Cannon, and in which Judgment
has been declared for the full amount
sued for. The public records show that
the Ralya Market Company was incor-
porated expressly for doing jobbing as
we'll as retail business, and 1t Is on
jobbing transactions that the claim for
damages Is based.
Both cases arose out Of contracts
made for Armour & Co. last year, by
their duly authorized agent. with GER
tain Sioux City meat dealers, under
which Armour & Co. were to supply
certain classes of meats at fixed prices,
during term of months, one particular
commodity being pork loins at 5A cents
per pound. During the life Of the con-
tracts this commodity arose in price to
about twice the figures at which twas
contracted. Armour & Co. stood the rise
for time. filling what We're known to
be jobbng orders. and then refused to
fill them further. For this refusal the
local parties have sued for damages
Beaumont Il Nease for $S4.706, and the
Ralya Market Company for $4,000.
The first named caee was brought in
New York, where certain real estate be-
longing to Armour & Co. was attached
as security for the claim. Personal SER
vice OF the papers was secured upon
Jonathan o. Armour, member Of the
firm. just as he stepped on an ocean
steamer on his return from trip to
Europe. The case was heard in one of
the lower courts, despite defendants
ton, and Judgment for the full
ants then took the case to the appellate
division OF the county court, which has
just affirmed the Judgment OF the court
below. OF course, Armour & Co., In all
probability, will take appeal to the SUI
preme court Of the state, and interpose
every possible obstacle to collection OF
the claim; but attorneys for the plain
tiff are very confident that the judg-
ment OF the lower court and the appel.
ate court will ultimately be affirmed,
and that the plaintiff will secure at least
the property belonging to the defend
ants which has been attached in New
York, and perhaps Judgment for any
deficiency which might exist between
the value OF such property; and the total
amount OF the claim.
The Ra1ya case was begun In the dis
tsiitt Il SoaTs Tor woodbury. county
against Armour q Co. as corporation
inrtead OF a firm. and on motion Of the
defendants was removed to the federal
court. Upon being called up there the
defendants represented that they were
organised AZ q hrm. and that therefore
the seIy,- notice neceseary to give
shs art jurisdiction had not