Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1903-08-11
Brief Sketch Of Cases Filed For August
Term of District Court.
C. ". VERMILION TO Be PRESIDING JUDGE
OPENS MONDAY, AUGUST t7-DAMAGE
MONEY INVOLVED THRTY.Two
CASES, THE WIVES BEING PL ANTiFFs IN TWEkTYslx

anty Co., suit on bond Plaintiff brings
suit to recover $15,51499 the sum
claimed due upon guaranty bond is
sued to H. G. Boardman as treasurer
of the plaintiff company McElroy &
McElroy attorneys for the plaintiff.
Albert F. Frye VS.. s. M. Wilson suit
on note. Plaintiff brings suit to re-
cover the sum of $23260 which he
claims is due on promissory note
given by the defendant McElroy G
McEiroy, attorneys for the plaintiff.
Martha E. Goodwin VS.. Harry Good
win, suit on note. Suit brought to re-
cover $144 claimed to be due from de-
PENDANT by plaintiff on promissory
note. d. H. Emery attorney for plain
tiff.
J. e. Houghland VS.. David Burden,
suit on contract. Plaintiff demands
judgment in the sum of S340 which he
claims is due him as result of an oral
agreement in the sale of a farm in
which the plaintiff acted as agent.
Cornell and Enoch attorneys for plain
tiff.
F. P. Gluck Company VS.. George
Cline, suit on attachment Plaintiff de-
mands judgment against defendant in
the sum of S135.50 for merchandise
said to have been given to defendant
and asks that writ of attachment be
issued against property of the defend
ant. Heindei & Weber attorneys for
the plaintiff.
Nv. P. Chisman VS.. Charles Olson &
Co., ct al, suit ON attachment. Plaintiff
states that defendants are indebted to
him in the sum of $10762 and he asks
that writ OF attachment be issued
against the property of the defendants.
Sumner Siberell attorney for the plain
tiff.
Ottumwa National bank VS.. M. J..
McMahon, ct al, suit on note. Plaintiff
demands judgment in the sum of S5l3
the amount said to be due on a note
given by defendants. Work & Work.
attorneys for the plaintiff.
Ottumwa National Bank VS.. Palmer
G. Grooms ct al, suit on note. Plaintiff
| demands judgment in the sum of $40,
and that writ of attachment be issued
against the property of H. e. Grooms.
Sumner Siberell, attorney for the
plaintiff.
George Haw, ST., VS. Charles Harlan,
suit on contract. Plaintiff demands
judgment against defendant for
tS107.50, which he claims is due as
| the purchase price on certain property
in Garfield park addition G. w. Whit
more, attorney for the plaintiff.
| Hubbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.,
VS. A. W. Martin, suit on contract.
Plaintiff demands judgment aginst the
| defendant for the sum of $13S.19. the
amount which it is claimed is due for
merchandise consigned to defendant.
Heindel & Weber, attorneys for plain
tiff
Y. r. Parks VS. w. c. Hirst. suit On
note. Plaintiff asks judgment against
defendant for the sum of S27O, said to
be due on certain promissory note.
Blake & Hall. plaintiffs attorneys.
1 Lock & Key Advertising Co., VS. G..
4 B. Chapman, petition at law. Plaintiff
asks Judgment for the sum of $432O,
said to be due on merchandise con-
signed to defendant. Seneca Cornell,
/ attorney for plaintiff
John w. McIntire & Co., VS. d. H.
Bottorff, petition at law Plaintiff
brings action to recover $50, claimed
to be due from defendant for funeral
services. Sumner Siberell, attorney for
1 plaintiff.
w. II. Hillery VS. Milwaukee railroad
Co., suit on damages. Plaintiff de-.
| mands judgment in the sum of 81 500
/ from the defendant company for al.
| legged damages to a car of stock con.
signed to plaintiff. Gilmore & Moon
i plaintiffs attorneys
A. d. Moss VS. q. Cowan ct al, petit
ton at law. Plaintiff demands iudg-.
ment in the case against the defen.
dants in the sum of S141.61 for mer.
chandise said to have been delivered
to defendants. Fl. L. Manion, attorney
for plaintiff.
| ]. H. Merrill & Co. VS. A. 'FosdiclS
suit on attachment. Plaintiff asks for
a writ of attachment on property OF
defendant and judgm ent in the sum OF
$16s.76. Work & Work, attorneys fol
plaintiff.
John M. Russell VS. Fleming Bros, eli
al, suit on contract. Plaintiff demands
judgment in the sum of S61SS7, which
he claims is due him for the alleged
violation of an insurance contract
Work & Work, attorneys for plaintiff
| Smoky Hollow Coal Co. VS. Ottumwa
Traction & Light Co., petition on &C
count. Plaintiff demands judgment
against defendant in the sum of 1898.
25, which the plaintiff claims is due
on merchandise delivered to defendant
Clarkson & Bates, attorneys for plain
tiff.
/ w. V. Silvers VS. John Hagan, peti
ton for attachment. Plaintiff demands
judgment against defendant for 1921.
SO and that an attachment be ISSUED
/ against the property of the defendan
and that on final hearing an order BIZ
made that the attached property BIZ
sold in satisfaction of iudgm ent
Jaques & Jaques, attorneys for plain.
4 tiff.
i Leah Sickel VS. New York Life Insur
ance Co., suit on policy. Plaintiff de
mands judgment in the sum of $500,
which she claims is due on life in
surance policy covering the life of thu
late Isaac Siclkel. Stecll & Smith
plaintiffs attorneys.
M. Schwartz vs. J. H.. Cremer, sheriff
plaintiff asks for writ of repleyir
on certain property in Eddyville at
Il tached by sheriff SteclS &C. Smith at