The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1901-12-07
N THE SUPREME COURT
A KOoTENAI CASE REVERSED
Monday the Supreme Court Handed
Down a Decision in the Case Of tine
Idaho Mercantile Co., Appellant, W.
chas. KaIaBquin, Respondent.

I
with the Northern Pacific for ties and
took the Idaho Mercantile campaDy
into partnership on the contract. At
ter completing this another contract
was given TO Kalanquin in which he
denies that the Mercantile company
had any interest. This dispute result.
ed 10 law suit. 1t has been twice
tried in the district court aud this is
the second decision by the supreme
court on the case. The opiniol is by
Justice Sullivan, Chief Justice Qnarles
coneurring aud Justice Stockslager dis
sentlng. In the opinion OF the court
Justice Sullivan says:
Roche (seeretary of the company
testified that defendant came into
plaintiffs Office and said Il have got
another contract for ties. There's
letter fr5m Mr. Willis, the timber agent
of the Northern Pacific railroad" aud
handed witness the letter. At that
time witness Sander WAS not in the Of
| flee, but Roche called him into the Of
/ ice. After Mr. Sander came in witness
asked defendant II they came in on that
/ contract, and the defendant replied,
" es we will go along with this AS US
ual." Witness replied, do We come
. in on the additional cent also Z" De
/ fehdant replied, "Yes. when ! am in
with men | believe in share and share
alike, Ia sharing up with them" Wit
ness replied. THAT is nice, Mr.. Kalan-
/ qnin. We will try and do the best We
can for you"
Sander. president of plaintiff com
+ pany, testified as follows: II have per
sonai knowledge about the verbal con
! tract that is in controversy Ia this ac-
ton. know that in March, 1899. Mir
/ Roche requested me 10 come up into
the Office and handed me the letter from
Mr.. Willis, the same letter produced in
evidence here and now handed me
marked Plaintiffs exhibit b. which is
the letter now refer 10. Mr.. Kalan-
! quin WAS there at the time and stated
he had received "A new contract from
the Northern Pacific Railway company
( for some ties, and asked me if We
wanted 10 go In on that contract on the
same terms and conditions as the pre-
yious contract, that is this written con
I tract for 5000 cross ties. But | saw
/ from the letter that there Was an ad-
ditiOnal one cent for all tie ties he
would get out. said we would 60 IN
ola the contract on The same terms aud
conditions as the other. We were 10
share aud share alike IN the profits
which would give us an additional one
eent for the ties. Aud We talked over
the contract for awhile, and asked
Mr.. kalanQuin how many ties lac had
( Ia view aud would b. likely TO get out,
aid he said there were more than
enough TO Oh the contract. ] said un-
der these conditions we were perfectly
willing 10 go In with him. And / ask
ed him IL everything was satisfactory
/ lie said it WAS all satisfactory aud had
been"
"ln regard TO said conversation the
defendant Kalanquin testified as fol-
lows: Il had no conversation with any
other person or persons In regard 10
that letter when / received it, only just
with Mr.. Roche. The occasion Of my
! showing II to Mr.. Roche and having
conversation with him in regard 10 the
/ letter was: Of course / was in the
store back and forth, some times two or
three times day. The men coming ia
there to buy goods; | showed lin this
/ letter had received from the railroad
company. / remember that Mr.. Roche
said ii Was a pretty nice letter. ! did
not at that time make any agreement
with Mr.. Roche, nor with the Idaho
Mercantile company in regard to the
execution Of any contract l had Sc
cured. | don't thiuk Mr.. Sander was
present When | had the conversation
with Mr.. Roche. don't remember he
was there. don't remember of any
conversation with Mr.. Sander have
no recollection OF ii, anyway"
This testimony of the defendant does
not amount TO contradiction of the
positive testimony OF the witnesses
+ Roche and Sander, Il don't remember,
I | don't recollect' is the substance of his
testimony, aud he denies that any
agreement was made at that time. How
does he know that no agreement was
made when he does not remember the
conversation? IL he remembered the
conversation and testified to 1t the court
and jury then would be able to deter
mine whether contract was made from
the conversation had. Ii the converse
lions testified to by Roche aud Sander
took place contract was made, and II
is not denied by the defendant except
by his conclusion that no agreement
was made, which is no denial whatever
of the facts and conversations testified
to by Roche and Sander.
The evidence being overwhelmingly
in favor of the plaintiffs cause of ac-
ton, and there being no substantial
conflict in il, the judgement must be set
aside and new trial granted, and it is
so ordered.
3 In his dissenting opinion, Justice
Stockslager says:
, There is no dispute about the time
and place Of the conversation between
Roche and KalanQuin and it is not urg-