The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1902-10-21
ANSWERS FILED IN WOOL At
TAcHMENT CASES.
NOT COMPLYING WITH LAW
Defendants Deny Facts Alleged ana
Also Charge Violation Of
the Code.
From Fridays Daily Gazette.

EIOu TIludy . DdlIy 0dZ0II0.
Perhaps some of The Gazette:
readers still remember the fact thai
when the wool season was at its
height last summer several clips were
seized by the sheriff under attach
ments issued out of the district court
at the instance of Silberman Bros, an
eastern commission firm, which alleg
ed that the parties attached were in
debted to it because of over-drafts on
consignments. Some of the
defendants, although the denied
the Indebtedness, rather than incur
the trouble and expense of a lawsuit
settled and their clips were released.
Others, however, decided to fight the
claims and gave the required bonds to
ments.
John F. Locke was one of those who
concluded to resist and w. r. Ker-
mode and W. E. Davis were the 9th
ers. The latter two were sued joint
ly, they being partners in the sheep
growing business. Although the suits
were instituted July 20, W to
the complaints were not filed until
yesterday afternoon, when they arriv-
ed from Livingston, the Hon. John T.
Smith of that city having been retain
ed by the defendants.
Both answers are quite lengthy and
go into details in an exhaustive man
ner. In the Locke case admission is
made than or August 81, 1900, the de-
PENDANT consigned to plaintiffs 25,-
500 pounds of wool to be sold on the
Chicago market. He also admits that
he received the sum of $3,340.77 as an
advance on the consignment, but de-
MES that the payment was made as
a matter of accommodation to him, as
alleged by the plaintiffs, or that it
was to be retained by him until such
time as they should have disposed Of
the wool. He furthermore alleges that
the consignment was made by special
agreement and denies that he is in
debted to plaintiffs in the sum Of
$S24.76, the amount sued for, although
admitting that they have made de-
mand on him for that amount.
The allegation is made hat during
the latter part of the month of August,
1900, w. w. Beasley of Big Timber,
who was agent for the plaintiffs, So
licited the consignment from him and
the defendant informed him that he
would not consign his wool to the
plaintiffs or anybody else, unless the
consignee agreed to pay cash in ad-
vance the sum of 10 cents a pound,
Internationally and without a rebate
thereof to be made by the defendant.
This condition, the answer AYERS, was
accepted by the plaintiffs through
vision that 10 cents a pound was to
be paid for the wool upon it's receipt
at Chicago and anything in excess
of this, should the wool sell for more,
he made the consignment. He also
further AYERS that it was distinctly
understood between him and the
plaintiffs that in no event was he to
pay back any portion of the money
advanced in case the wool did not sell
for enough to repay the plaintiffs the
amount advanced.
Doing Business illegally.
After reciting that Beasley was the
firms duly authorized agent in that
he drew sight drafts on the principals
and in various ways did business for
them, the answer alleges that be-
cause of their failure to comply with
the state, laws in regard to the man
ner in which foreign concerns shall
do business in the state they are with
out standing in court. 1t is charged
that the firm of SHERMAN Bros, un-
der which the plaintiffs did business
in Montana at the time of entering in
to the contract with the defendant
was a fictitious name; that prior to DO
ing any business in the state they
should have filed a certificate with
some county clerk in the state and al
so publish in some newspaper in the
state the names of the men compos-
ing the firm and in other particulars
comply with the provisions of section
$3.50 of the civil code of Montana. Be-
cause of their failure to do so, before
or since, under the provisions of the
section quoted and also of sections
1921 and 1882 they are not entitled to
maintain this action against the de-
PENDANT and it should be dismissed.
Therefore he asks that the court
give the plaintiffs nothing and taking
nothing from him and that he be dis
charged and given judgment for the
cost.