The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-08-01
UP To court
The MOunDay Custer and
ReceiyerShip
Case Is Argued Before the Su-
preme Court Today.
JOHN DAWSON VS.. DICK HITE
These Attorneys in War of
Wits and Words.
MOunDay Literature Displayed
in Court.

The entire morning session of the
supreme court was spent in listening
to arguments regarding the courts jur-
isdiction to hear the facts and make
findings in the receiVership and custer
suit brought by the state against the
American Sugar Manufacturing & Ike
fining companies of Oklahoma and Ne"
Mexico and the land department of the
Oklahoma corporation, which it is con-
tended, is conducted personally py Ion
a. MounDay and L. d. w. M~ounDaS' ~
his wife Most of the morning SeS-
sion was consumed by D. r. Hlte, Oh
defendants' counsel, who urged that
ouo warranto proceedings do not ne
in the case against the two lnulVlu-
ual defendants. ,..
Hite's arguments to the court We're
based on the assertions OF Don a
MounDay. contained in an athdaVlt'
and alleging that the sugar cOhlpah-
les were not interesting III MS lanu oP
erations and that the business "iICi
he has conducted is private eht
prise. the name OF the sugar ollSar,+
merely being loaned to the delenuali.
for the purpose of conducting Iahu
department at his own FISK ana eA-
pense and independent OF either tne
oklahoma or New Mexico corporations
Answering Hite's arguments, ATTORNEY
that even on the assertions OF the de-
fense it revealed a ''pitiful story Oh
duplicitv on the part of MounLay anu
warranted the action of the court
Freouentlv in the course of the ar
s1Inents, the associate justices, Mason
R1,rcb and West interrupted the law
vers To ask searching questions re-
garding the -IounDay operations Al
noon Hite had not concluded his arSu-
ment- -. 49,,
It is contended by the state that the
custer suit against the sugar com
Danv is strictly in point with the Kan
sas custer suit against the Brewery
Association and that this contention
was not without strength, was lhulca
ted in the question hurled at the attoI-
neys for the defense by the court JUS
tices. -
How about the case against the
brewery association in which there was
no service and no admissions, but an
order was issued on the facts! askeo
Justice Burch.
81 contend that the court is power
less to act against an absent corpora
ton and one which has not done ana
is not doing business within the state.
This is a federal question and TINS
court has no power to selze upon ine
property of a corporation not doing
business within the state replied
Hite.
II.
two sugar companies were not DONG
business in Kansas, had never sold or
offered stock or land for sale IN the
state. He insisted that the Oklahoma
CORPORATION had loaned its name to
MounDay to operate a land depart
ment and that MounDay's actions were
those of a private citizen and that quo
warranto proceedings We're not the
proper methods of procedure.
Borrowed a Name.
ssVo,1 cIa that the CORPORATION
loaned to MounDay the right to use
its name in the establishment OF
land Department." inquired Justice
Mason.
Il do" said Hite.
Judge Doster, assisting the state in
the prosecution of the case, was on
his feet Immediately.
81 wish to call your attention, salo
Judge Doster, Ito the Incorporation
papers permitting the company TO
establish a land department and to
deal in land or to lease and acquire
lands"
I don't care if it does" replied
Hite. Il have read the same thing in
a thousand charters. SO have you.
ment" continued the defendants
counsel, that the sugar company
might be liable for deceit, but that
argument must be urged elsewhere
That company had a right to lend its
name to this man to establish land
department and he has done so at his
own risk and expense and independent
of the corporation against which you
seek this order.
Asked by the court whether he TO
presented the corporations the
MounDays, Hite declared that he APP
peared for the individual defendants.
Continuing his argument against the
right of the supreme court to hear the
issues in the quo warranto proceedings,
Hite declared:
This issue is clear defense n the
injunction suit brought by MounDay,
as an Individual. against the attor-
ney general and the bank commissioner
TO stop the enforcement of the blue
sky law against him. Yet what lid
Dawson do? He filed a demurrer and
asked for judgment on the pleadings
and dragged this case before this tri-
bunal instead of urging it where it
should have been heard. in the district
court.
MounDay's Rights and Privileges.
Every dollar that went into this
enterprise" urged Hite. was the
money of MounDay. He had a right
TO embark in a private and Individual
enterprise and to use the name of the
land department of the corporation.
And the question of fraudulent action
of individuals can come before this
court only on appeal and in due course
and due time
1t was admitted that MounDay was
general manager of the sugar company.
which the state seeks to oust from the
state But Attorney Hite insisted that
MounDay personally and not the cor
porations. Incorporated in Oklahoma
and New Mexico had conducted the
sale of lands. For this reason. it was
urged thta the court could not act in
the custer and receivership suit
Attorney General Dawson briefly but