Omaha daily bee., 1903-04-25

PENDANT in the property and when a re-
ceiver was appointed for the place they
objected, hling a supersedeas bond to re-
strain the receiver from acting. e. A. Ben
son was on the bond, and when final judg-
ment was issued it was a~djudged that he
should pay $~1,211.5S to David NJ. Marvin,
guardian, and s2ss.42 to C. e. Bates. The
records do not show that the judgment has
been paid.
Another Unsatished Execution.
At page FOG, of docket 40, is recorded the
case of the American National bank against
the Briggs Place Building association, e.
A. Benson and others, to collect a prom
issory note of 50. 100. The suit was started
in 1898. and judgment secured. Execution
was Issued and returned not satisfied, as
no property OF the defendants could be
found, but in 1894 E. A. Benson paid 500
on the judgment to secure a release by the
receiver Of the bank upon certain lots held
by someone who could not sell unless the
judgment was waived.
On page 2Ss Of docket Al is recorded the
suit of William r. Pitt against e. A.
Benson and others. The Judgment was for
$1,000, but the plaintiff bought the prop
erty involved, lots 20 and "a, dundee Place,
for $66S, and was forced to pay the costs
Of the case, as they could not be otherwise
collected.
In docket 65. at page 264, is recorded the
case of Ella Rodman Ayres against Z, A.
Benson and others, on a promissory note
for $1,000. The security was lots Is and
Fl. in block 10 and lot IA. in block II.
Briggs Place. The total Judgment against
Benson was s1.s42.5O. The amount re-
ceived by the plaintiff, by purchasing the
lot, was S1.75O.
Signs Like n blind Man.
The latest case hled against Mr.. Benson
is the case Of John s.. Caulheld, against E.
A. Benson and others. In this case Mr..
Benson gave an indemnifying bond to VIII
liam Coburn, sheriff. in a case OF William L.
Hall against the New York Storage &
Loan company. John L.. Watson brought
suit against Coburn on his bond, one Of
his bondsmen being John s. Caulheld, and
secured Judgment. After this Judgment
had been satisfied Mr.. Coburn transferred
to Mr.. Caulheld all claims which he had
under the indemnitying bond. In the
answer in this case Mr.. Benson said that
he had signed a paper at the request Of
William L. Hall, but did not know whether
II was an indemnifying bond or not; he
pleaded the statute of limitations to avoid
the DEBT, saying that more than nve years
had elapsed since II was given. The Jury
before whom the case was tried thought
differently and gave such a verdict that
the supreme court reduced 1t by the amount
OF computed interest.
The plaintiffs against Mr.. Benson seem
to be unfortunate. for this is the third case
in which the judgment recovered had to be
revived in the name Of an administrator
because Of the death OF the plaintiff and
the judgment is now held by c. e. Clapp,
trustee for the heirs OF J. s. Caulheld, ac-
cording to the record.
benson ~ n PLAINTIFF.
But II is not entirely as a defendant that
Mr.. Benson appears in the district court.
He has been a plaintiff. although the prop
critics involved we're small and owned by
persons not in prosperous conditions, IL the
record is TO be believed. While IN nearly
qveFV case that he has haen dafandapf he