The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1907-02-28
DEcIs'%..:: eo,n
Plaintiff wins out in Litigation with
Sank Centre Grocery Company.
Defense will Appeal Case.


The case of J. H. Book against the
Sank Centre Grocery company closed
Thursday morning with victory for
the plaintiff. The defense states that
it will take an appeal to the supreme
court. The case which has attracted
good deal of attention in this part of
the county, was begun last Monday.
Up to Thursday noon witnesses were
examined by both the plaintiff and the
defense giving evidence as to the value
of the stock of merchandise located at
Fergus Falls. w. w. Parker, trav-
cling salesman for Marshall, Field &
Co., of Chicago, F. G. Troppman and
James Downs, who were the apprai-
sers of the stock, stated on the stand
that it was worth about $4,000. E. A..
Barthelemy and Chas. A. Leagle for
the plaintiff testified that they looked
the stock over and that it was not
worth more than 81, 900. They stated
that the stock was old and consisted
mostly of odds and ends. The exam
inatiOn of the witnesses was completed
Thursday noon. The defense called
for Book to be cross-examined under
the statute. The plaintiff objected to
this, claiming that the answer of the
Sank Centre Grocery company does
not constitute any defense to the
plaintiffs claim that the issue Of the
stock of the Sank Centre Grocery COM
| dany was illegal and void. The at
tOrne on both sides argued the case
before Judge Taylor unit! 6 O'Clock
Thursday night. The Judge took the
matter under advisement until Friday
morning and then sustained the OBJ
jections OF the plaintiff on the grounds
set forth by them In their objections.
This practically ended the case. The
decision of the judge has not yet been
written, but victory was won by the
plaintiff.
History Of the Case.
F. G. Iroppman & Co., has at Fer
gus Falls stock of general merchan-
disc claimed by them to be worth
about $4,000. At corporate meet
ing of the Sank Centre Grocery COM
pany held on Sept. and while Book
was absent in Dakota, Troppman pro-
posed tlaGe of this stock Of general
merchandise for corporate stock in
the Grocery company. Troppman's
proposition was accepted by the gro
Gerry company, Troppman and Shea,
the only directors present, voting in
its favor. The board of directors con-
sists Of three members, Book, Shea
and Troppman, so in the absence OF
Book, Troppman's vote was necessary
to consummate the deal. The action
was brought by Book to set aside and
canoe! this trade for the reason that
according to the articles of incOrpOr-
alton OF the Sank Centre Grocery COM
pany it could not engage in the
general merchandise business and for
further reason that the trade or con-
tract was null and illegal because it
required the vote Of Troppman to
make the deal. BY this transaction
incidentally Troppman became a ma
jority stakeholder OF the grocery COM
pany. On the other hand the defense
claimed that it was necessary to make
this trade for the purpose of raising
money to meet obligations OF the
company and that the course was fair
and beneficial to the grocery company.
1t was also claimed that there vas an
agreement at the time of the incorpor.
alton that Troppman was to own at
least one-half of the stock. The act
ion in this case was brought last fall.
Upon the application of the plaintiff a
restraining order was issued to res
train the Sank Centre Grocery COM
pany from intermingling the stock OF
merchandise goods which was
purchased from Troppman at Fergus
Falls with the grocery stock at Sank
Centre. Later another Injunction was
issued restraining Troppman from
voting the corporate stock which he
received for his general merchandise
stock at the corporate meeting. An
appeal from this order was taken to
the supreme court as~ing for the
raising of the bond of the company
from $500 to $4,000. The supreme
court handed down an order raising
the bond to $1,000. Another action
was brought by Joseph Book, a son
of the plaintiff, for the same purpose.
Last January the defendants secured
an Injunction restraining the Sank
Centre company from holding the an
nual meeting There was an agree
ment made then by the respective par
ties to have all proceedings held in
allegiance, and nothing done by either
side until the case was tried on its
merits before the Judge of the district
court.
The case was we'll handled on both
sides. Theodore Bruener and Rey-
nolds & Roeser were the attorneys for