https://caspercollege.cvlcollections.org/files/original/ca3f92a68a6cf64d8ff22c1121d7185f.pdf 0d7427d19c81c3fc36d6d047950185d7 PDF Text Text Form 1206A y CLASS OF SERVICE DESIRED CABLE OOMESTIC TELE'iRAM FULL RATE DAY Lt H ER DEFERRED NIGHT CABLE LETTER MESSAGE NIGHT LETTER X WEEK END LETTER I’atrona should check claaa oi service desired; otherwise measage will be transmitted as a full-rate A communication ( WESTERN UNION NEWCOMB CARLTON, PRESIDENT J. C. WILLEVeR, FIRST VieC'PRCSIOENT Send thefollowing masage, subject to the terms on bacJi hereof, which are hereby agreed to January 3, 1934» Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 State Street Boston, Massachusetts For lirj'edlate settlement Minty versus Draper & Company Minty authorizes settlement six thousand dollars (stop) Amount duo with interest considerably exceeds this sum but for quick settlement and to avoid trip to Boston compromise is acceptable (stop) If above settlement cannot be made Minty can leave for Boston within week If trial can be arranged> Advise. jOTRHAM & BACHELLER (Charge Durham & Bacheller) �October 10, 1933. Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 State Street Boston, Mass, Rea Minty va. Draper & Oonpanar, Gentlemen: . VZe acknowledge receipt of yours of the 3rd In the above matter. Mr, Minty is out of the city, but as soon as he returns and we have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him, we feel that we will be able to submit an offer In con^romise. As soon as we can contact him, we will write you further. Very truly yours, ., - �CHOATE, HALL & STEWART JOHN LHALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA HARVEY H. BUNDY CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P.CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C. CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT 30 STATE STREET CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 1899 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART I9OA ~ 1928 BOSTON. MASS. October 5, Messrs* H* 5* Durham and E. P* Bacheller, Casper, Wyoming* Dear Sirs: In re; Minty v* Draper & Ccnapany I have not previouslyreplied to yonr letter of September 13th because until today I have been un­ successful in getting an audience with Mr* Hughes, attorney for the defendant. I have been trying for sometime to get Mr* Hughes to agree to the taking of Mr* Minty*s deposition upon oral interrogatories. While he has never definitely refused to do this he has always had some good reason for postponing his decision. It now appears that he is anxious to get the $7500* which weare holding under attachment re­ leased by giving a bond and I think I may be able to get some sort of an agreement in the very near future Today, inc onnectlon with the release of the attachment a discussion of a possible settlement came up and he has requested me to give him our best settle­ ment figure. He said he did not know whether his client would be willing to settle the case but he would be glad to submit to them any reasonable figure we might name* As I wrote you before, regardless of whether or not Mr. Minty*s deposition is taken I think It will be necessary for him to be here for the trial as there is almost sure to be evidence offered by the defendant which we would want Mr. Minty to contradict* In view of the expense Involved I assume Mr. Minty would prefer to settle the case if a reasonable offer is made by the defendant. Will you please discuss the matter with Mr. Minty and let me know the lowest figure he would be willing to accept. Of course, I shall try to get as much as I can but I would like to know what his lowest figure is* Very t3*uly yours. SPT:JLG �4-^7 ’•r»tember 1933 \ ChoatOf Hall & Stewart 30 State Street Boston, Maae* * In re> Minty vs. Draper & Company* GentXement We will be pleased to have yon advlee US the present statue of this matter, as client Is Inquiring, Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHELLER, -'—Al- �April 27, 1933. Choate, Hall Stewart Attorneys at Lav 30 State Street Boston, Mass. In z*ei Minty vs. Draper & Co, Gentlemen: It has been some months since ve have heard from you oonoemlng the status of the above litigation. Will you please give us a complete report at this time so that we may bring our files up to date? Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHELLER, By SPBiW �Way 19, 1933. Choate. Hall de Stewart SO State Street Boston, Mass* In ret Minty y» Draper & Coinpaig. Oentlenwi! We acknowledge receipt of yoitrs of the 15th In the above jnatter. W© note that a Tnotlon will be made to permit the taking of the testimony of the plaintiff orally at Ceaper. Many times. In the taking of a deposition upon Intorrogatorles, ancwers suggest further questions which cannot be propounded unless the deposition Is taken orally* This Is one of the ndvantagos of an oral deposition, and w© trust that you may be successful In your contemplated motion* We Intend to xa*G© very strongly upon Mr, Minty the alvleablllty of planning to appear per­ sonally In the trial of the action, and we sincerely hone that be ?p«ty b© n>le to make the necessary financial arr«3n^*»ment8 to attend. Vex*y truly yours, DORHAM & BACHBIXER, By BPBtW �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L.HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5030 1699 - 1927 RALPH A. STEWART 1904 - 1926 BOSTON. MASS, Messrs. Durham & Casper, Wyoming. lay 16, 1953. Bacheller, Dear Sirs: In re; Minty v. Draper & Co. Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of May 10th. I note what you say in regard to the demoralized condition in the wool and sheep market and that Mr. Minty would probably not care to incur the expense of a trip to Boston. As I told you in my recent letter it does not now appear likely that the case will be reached this year, and I hope by the time the case is ripe for trial things may have so Improved with Mr. Minty that he will be able to come here to testify in person. However, as you suggest, no Hr rm will come from taking the deposition at this time even though Mr. Minty should later decide to come on. Our courts have power to permit the taking of oral depositions but where there is strong objection by either side the parties are usually required to take the depositions on written interrogatories. In this case I can see considerable advantare to taking the deposition of Mr. Minty orally and I shall make a motion to that end and urge the same as strongly as I can. Very truly yours. SPTzJLG �May 10, 1933 Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 State Street Boston, Mass* Gentlemen: ■V© r.ekno^^ledge reeetpt of yours of the Sth In the matter of Minty vs, Draper & Gompany, and note the congestion of your docket. Mr. Minty Is not In Casper at the present time, so that we are tinahle to confer with him personally with reference to the second paragraph of your letter. However, we are confident that ho will not care to Incur the expense Incident to a trip hack to Boston, hut would prefer to have his deposition taken here. We realize that his personal presence In court would add materially to the strength of his case, hut the demoralized condition existing In the wool and sheep market for the past several years has made economy the watch-­ word of all engaged In th© live stock Industry, and wo are confident that If the case should he reached for trial this spring Mr. Minty would not care to make th© trip. However, wo presume that ©ven though the deposition may he taken. If Mr. Minty should later decide to make the trip ho would not ho precluded from testifying. We note that the deposition Is to he taken on Interrogatories, and wo are wondering If, under your practice, this Is necessary. It might ho more satisfactory to give notice of th© taking of th© deposition before competent authority at Casper, with the thought that In this way the deposition mlrht possibly bo more thorough In covering Mr. Minty’s testimony. However, we will be governed by your surrestlon, of eou'^’n©. It Is unfortunate that the trial will, of necessity, he delayed for some time, but such delay seems unadvoldahlo. Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHELLER, By EPBlW �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L. HALL FREDERICK H. NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 1699 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 190-4 - 1926 BOSTON, MASS. May 5, 1953 Messrs. Durham & Batcheller, Casper, Wyoming. i^ear Sirs Ip re: Minty v. Draper & Company Replying to your letter of April 27th with reference to the status of the above case I will say that this action is pend­ ing on the general jury list for Suffolk County, being No. 279415. There are several thousand cases ahead of the Minty Case so that there is very little prospect of it being reached for trial this year. Within the next few wceRs I intend to prepare interro^atories for the purpose vf taking hir. Minty’s deposition unless vou think it will oe practical for him to come on here at the time of the trial. Of course, you appreciate that Mr. Minty’s testimony on the witness stand would be much more effective than his deposition but, on the other hand, I realize that for him to come on here would involve considerable expense. I shall leave that matter entirely up to you and Mr. Minty, although if he cou^d be here at the time of the trial I am sure it would be of considerable help to his case. At the time suit was brought against Draper & Company wo made an attachment by trustee process and have under attachment $7,500. which Is the amount of the ad damnum alleged in the writ, therefore, should we be successful in the suit there appears to be no question about payment of any judgment we may recover. The defendant claimed jury trial so that we can not. without the defendant’s consent, waive plaintiff’s claim for jury trial and get a speedy trial by the court. Very truly yours. SPT:JLG �July 11, 1938. Choate^ Hall £: Stewart Lttoi'neya at Lav 30 State Street Boston, Maee* Eet Minty VB» Draper & Company* Gentlemen: Answer to your letter of the 26th ult. has been delayed beoauae X have been out of the olty* Mr* Minty has a complete x^eeord of all sums dlBbui*oed by him for filing feee, and these i;ecords will be available for uae upon the tiding of his deposition* Very tznxly yours, DURHAM & BACHELLER, EPD-.W �CHOATE, HALL & STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN U. HALL FREDERICK H. NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P-CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F, CHOATE, JR. 1699 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 1904 - 1926 BOSTON, MASS. June 28, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Bacheller Casper, Wyoming Re! Minty v. Draper & Co., Inc. Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter of June 25. The figures which were In the copy of our, declaration which was sent to you were taken from the declaration prepared in your office, and I assume they are correct. Did Mr. Minty keep any records of the sums disbursed by him for filing fees? The file which we have contains no Itemized statement of the amounts so disbursed by him. Thank you for your explanation of a telegram of February 4. I feel this telegram is somewhat ambiguous but it seems fairly clear, with the exception of the matter of expenses. Very truly yours �Juno 25th, 1932 Choate, Hall & Stevert, 90 State Stx*eet, Boston, T^aBsaohusette. 2S3L.^> i* j»s.cgr & Cg.. Gentlemen: We ackiicvledrce receipt of yours of the twentyfirst enclosings copy of. your declaration to be filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County in the above matter• Without tlxe files before ug wo can not ecy definitely the exact amount wliich sliould be Inserted In th© declara­ tion but 1X‘ the figures submitted in yojir lettei^ wex*© taken from the petition prepared by us we believe they are correct as w© had oonoldered th© imlter quit© Aurftriniv at that time* The telegram of February 4th quoted by. you in your letter was oonsldei’ed by th© interested parties as meaning? that Minty was guaranteed a minimum of $1,000*00 plus his expenses in tiio event that he was unable to earn more than $1,000.00 but that If his earnings exceed­ ed this amount ho was to pay fils own cravel expenses, such expenses la no event however, to include filing fees. Trusting that this sufficiently explains th© apparent Inconsistentty in the telegram, w© are Very truly yours, DORHAK & BACIUTLEIR e;b:s Air ?:all. �CHOATE, HALL & STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L. HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C. CURTIS MARC1EN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F. CHOATE, JR. 1899 - 1927 RALPH A,STEWART 1904 - 1926 BOSTON. MASS. Juoe 21, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Bacheller Casper, Wyoming re: Roy B. Minty v. Draper & Co., inc. Gentlemen: to enclosing herewith copy of declaration which I have prepared in the above action. As I do not have an itemized state­ ment of the account, I cannot be sure whether the figures'^alleffed ficrura-s nnAo-Ari are correct or not. I have taken them from your declaration and from such figures as I was able to find In the file. With refer­ ence to the sum of |6288.22, which Minty received, I am unable to r ‘'ST'-.? applied against the amounts which Minty disbursed for llllng The declaration declaration has has to to be be filed filed - fees, etc. The in court on T ? K there are any changes which should be made in it, I shall be obliged if you will let me know before that time. I not wholly clear as to just what the telegram dated February 4, 1930 means. The first part of it is as xwxxuwofollows: "Have following proposition to offer you from Draper & Co. stop You aM expenses on all wool you obtain stop Draper will guarantee you one thousand dollars plus expenses stop”. This language seems inconsistent to me. ;First it Thislanguage is stated that Minty is to 1/4 per pound less •; . . receive . '... ' of -- ----a cent expenses",* t-x^w. 44— stated that Draper will guarantee $1000 ”plus expenses”, J glad if you can enlighten me on this matter. . . , first part of the telegram means that there are certain loading expenses which are to be deducted from the com­ mission of 1/4 cent per pound, have these expenses been deducted? Very truly yours, ST V Enc. �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L. HAUL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. 1899 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 1904 - 1926 BOSTON. MASS. June 7, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Bacheller Casper, Wyoming In re; Minty v. Draper Company Gentlemen: We note that you are agreeable that the case shall be tried before the court rather than a jury and we shall, therefore, waive claim for Jury trial. Of course, as I explained before. If the other side claim jury trial we cannot deprive them of a jury by waiving our claim for jury trial. With reference to the right to interrogate which exists in our Superior Court, but not in the Federal Court, that is a right to question a party on written interrogatories before trial. The answers must be made under oath and may be used by the party interrogating at the trial. Any matter may be covered by the interrogatories which Is relevant to the issues in the case. It Is in substance requiring a party to testify in advance of trial, but a party is limited to asking thirty questions. We shall forward you a copy of plaintiff’s declaration when the same has been filed. Very truly yours. SPT:EH �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L.HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C, RAND CHARLES O. PEN6RA CLAUDE R,BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F, CHOATE. JR. 1699 — 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 1904 - 1926 BOSTON, MASS May 31, 1932 Dxxrham & Bach© Iler Casper, Wyoming Gentlemen; We acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 27, which apparently crossed ours of May 28We note that Mr. Tomason, who contracted with Mr, Minty by telegram, has died. We do not think this will make much difference to our case on© way or the other, because, under the laws of Massachusetts, statements of a deceased person may be admitted In evidence provided they wore made "in good faith before the commencement of the action and upon the personal knowledge of the Declarant*. Very truly yoxirs. ST V �May 51, 1932. Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 State Street Boston, Mass. Gentlemens We acknowledge receipt of yours of the 28th Inat. in the matter of Minty vs. Draper & Company, et al, and note that you have filed suit, and Uxat process is returnable the first Monday In July. We agree that this le a ease to be tried by the Court rather than a Jury, and If this oan be arranged we note that It will result In a speedier trial. Your docket must be oonsides^ably congested if it would take two years to bring the ease to trial before a Jury, Fortunately that condition does not exist in our local courts. We understand by the third paragraph of your letter, in which you state that If the case la removed to Federal Court you would be denied the right to interrogate, that you have reference to calling some member of Draper & Company to testify In advance of the trial. Please advise If we ara correct in this. Wo will be glad to receive a copy of defendant's answer and the Trustee's answer, and we would also like to have a copy of your Initial pleading for our files. Vex^ truly yours, DURHAM & BACHKhLKR, EPBsW �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L. HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O-PENGRA CLAUDE R, BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 6020 CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. 1699 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 190-4 - 1926 BOSTON, MASS. May 28, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Baoheller Casper, Wyoming Re: __ Roy B. Minty v. Draper & Company, Inc. and. The First National Bank of Boston, Trustee Gentlemen: We have obtained a financial report on the above defendant, have located their banking connection, and have brought suit of contract in the Superior Court for Suffolk County, return­ able the first Monday of July, In this action The First National Bank of Boston has been named as Trustee. The ad damnum of the writ is 17500. We will not know until the time for filing answers whether we have reached any funds by our attachment, but in view of the fact that our informant tells us the defendant carries a satisfactory account with The First National Bank, we assume that our attachment will be good. The last statement of Draper+Company, Inc., filed August 4, 1931, shows a surplus of ^801,235.68. In view of the diversity of citizenship of the plaintiff and the defendant, it would be possible to bring this suit in the Federal Court for the District of Massachusetts, where we would be able to gat a somewhat prompter trial than in the Suffolk Superior Court, where the docket is quite congested, and where It would be impossible to get a jury trial for in the neighborhood of 2 years. However, there are several disadvantages to trying In the Federal Court, among which is the absence of the right to interrogate, which we believe is important in this case. It would also be possible to get an early trial if this action were brought in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. However, we do not believe it is advisable to try this type of case in the Municipal Court, which is in reality more or less of a police court where small matters are handled in rather summary fashion. �- 2 - Messrs. Durham & Bacheller May 28, 1932 We have requested trial by jury, but jury trial may be waived at any time, and if you agree with us, it would be our idea later to waive jury trial and ask for trial before a single justice. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is a non-resident of Massachusetts, we feel he would fare equally as well before a single justice as he would before a local jury. One advantage of trial before a single justice is that wo would be able to get a trial within a year. Of course, it is possible that the defendant may file a request for jury trial, and if it does so, then we cannot have a trial before a single justice. As you know, it Is also possible for the defendant to remove the action to the Federal Court but we do not regard this as likely. We shall forward you copy of defendant’s answer and Trustee’s answer as soon as they are filed. We will then want to take up with you the matter of deposition. Very truly yours. ST V �1932 Say Choate, Hall and Stewart 30 State Street Boston, Massaohusetts Minty vs. Draper & Co* RE| Gentlemen: We would appreolate It if you would advise us what progress has been made In this matter* Mr* Tom A, Tomason, referred to In the oorrespondenoe which we sent you, was recently killed In an automobile accident near Casper, and It would api>Gar to uo that hla death would materially weaken the defense of this action. He Is the gentleman sdio first contacted Mr. Minty by telegraph from Washington and, we understand, is the person with Wiior.1 Minty dlscuseed the 'matter later in Denver. Very truly yours, DTWAM & BACHELLER, ■ EPB:LO ■ •- " �CHOATE. HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L, HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O. PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR, 1699 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 1904- 1920 BOSTON, MASS. April 28, 1922 B« Durham end. E. Paul Bachdllar, Esquires Casper, 'Jlfyomlng Attention of S. Paul Bacheller Centlemons Re: Roy B. Minty va. Draper & Company This la to aeknowledge reoelpt of your letter of April 20, 1922 enclosing your complete file In the above entitled matter. Aa soon as we have made a study of the file, we will communicate with you* Very tinily yours. ST <C �NOTE office'of CLERK UNITED ^KtES COURT RULE-COSTS OF CLERK DEPOSITS FOB SHALL BE MADE, AMD VHEM “Whenever sn action shall be brought or re­ moved into this court the plaintifT shall deposit with the Clerk, ten dollars, to be applied to the payment of costs as they shall accrue; in addition to the deposit of ten dollars, the plaintiff shall mve security tor all additional costs, to be approvea by the Clerk of this court, in the following form:— (Blank iormt oi bond furnished by Clerk) “The defendant upon entering his appearance, or filing any paper in the cause, shall deposit a like sum of ten dollars, to be applied in the same way; and in case of removal, the defendant shall in addition to the deposit of ten dollars, give se­ curity for all additional costs, to be approved by the Clerk of this Court, in the above form. “ Whenever the costs accruing against either party shall equal or exceed the sum so deposited, upon the demand of the Clerk, an additional sum 01 ten dollars shall be deposited by such party to be applied in the same way. In this way succes­ sive deposits of ten dollars each shall be made by each party as often as the first is exhausted.'* 1932 March 30 Oierk’s costs, NO. S1Q2.t(LLv11 CHEYENNE. WYO.,Maroh TiOth 191_? Poy B. ’'U nty‘j_ Plai nt i f f • Bv Durhan "^aoheller,attorneys To Charles J. Ohnhaus, Clerk, Dr. ........ . . . . . . . . $26.70 �EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE United States district Court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District of Wyoming CHEYENNE April 11, 1932. Durham & Bacheller, Attorneys at Law, Casper, Wyoming For Mr. Bacheller. Dear Mr. Bacheller: On March 30, 1932, wrote you enclosing bill for balance’of clerk’s costs due in civil case Ro. 2107, Roy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper & Company, Inc., Defendant, amounting to $26.70. Up to this time had had no remittance and the Examiner from the Department of Justice is now checking my office, and it is necessary to account for this balance to the United States. Won’t you kindly give this your attention and let me have check promptly. Very truly yours. Clerk �April 1932. Mr. Charles J. Ohnhaus, Clerk United States District Court Cheyenne, Vi^oming Dear Mr. Ohnhaus: We acknowledge receipt of yours of the 21Bt In regard to coats In cases Mo. 2107 Civil, and No. 2158 Civil. We have delayed remitting these costs because Mr. Minty has been out of town, and onlyreturned today. We ni'e enclosing herewith our check to your order In the anount of 026.70 covering the costs In No. 2107 Civil, and check to your order in the ainount of $24.75 In No. 2158 Civil. We are sorry that there was delay In remitting these costs. Vei*y truly yours, DOKHAM & BACHELLER, EPBtW Knc.2 �Department of Justice United states district court OFFICE OF THE CLERK DISTRICT OF WYOMING CHEYENNE April 21, 1932. E. Paul Bacheller, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Casper, Wyoming. Bear Paul: Am sorry, but again must call your atten­ tion to the balapce of clerk’s costs due in the following cases: Ho. 2107 Civil, Roy B. Minty, vs. Draper & Company, Inc., $26.70; No. 2158 Civil, Annie Shikany, vs. The Missouri State Life Insurance Company,........................... $24.75. Sent notices to you of these costs on March 30th and April 11th. The Examiner from the Department of Justice is at this time checking this office and will require me to advance these balances from my own pocket unless you can obtain remittances for me. Please get me checks as soon as you can, and oblige Very truly yours. KHP �—•> Rec^i for Article No. Resiatered at the Peat Office Indicated in Poataaarb Fee paii_____ ____ etnis Cla^^^siage _ ___ J.__ Return Receipt fee.— Delivery restricted to addressee: In person or order )i.. 47'.— Accepting employee will place his.- intltote In siace Indicating restricted delivery. §5:;.- POSTMASTER, per.. The seoder should write the name of the addressee on backhereofaaaoidgntification. Preaerre nod submit this receipt in case of inquiry or application forindcnnity. Registry Fees and Indemnity.—Dome^m.registry less caige from 15 cento forindeonity not exceeding 850 up to 81 for indemnity not esifteding 31,000. Th, fee on demestic registered matter without intrinsic value and for which indemnity is not paid is IS^cots. Consult noatmaster as to the specific domestic registry fees and as to the regetry fees cbargeabi, on registered parcel-post packages for foreign countries. Pees on domeatio registered C. O. D. nail range from 25 cents to 81.30 Indemnity claims must be filed within one year (C. O. D. eizmonhs) faom .n.ii.-ng, Form 380$ (IUv.7-1-29) c5—0862 i. a corwiaaKipuktbc omoe; uia April 20, 19320 Choate, Hall & Stewart 30 State Street Boston, Moss Gentlemen: Supplementing our letter of the 19th, and so that you may have a clearer picture of the situation, Thomson, referred to In the oorrespondenoe, cam© to Wyoming oom© time after meeting Minty in Denver, and proposed to Minty that they pool the wool purchased by each and split th© coTrsnlsslon. Thomson, however, wanted to reserve to himself th© territory In southern V/yomlng along th© Union Pacific line, and this Minty would not agree to. Tonnage obtained along the Union Pacific usually ran quit© high, and if Thomson had been willing to Include this Minty would have accepted, and It would have meant that Minty’s commissions would have probably been increased at least ^1,000.00, but when Thomsen wanted to receive all of th© commission for the Union Pacific business and split with Minty on the balance of th© territory, he promptly refused. Minty has kept very accurate records, and can establish each person from whom he purchased wool and th© amount of each purchase. W© do not know how familiar you may be with sheep and wool business, hut it Is customary for the commission men to purchase the wool prior to shearing and advance to th© grower a certain percentage of the appraised value of th© wool. These ar© the pre­ shearing advances referred to in the correspondence. Later, wh©n the wool is clipped and shipped, th© balance is pa 1. Very truly yours. DURHAM & BAOHBZXSR, BPBtW �April 19, 1932. Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at law 30 State Street Boston, Macsachusette Gentlemen: acknowledge reeelpt of yours of the 16th, in the matter of Minty vs. T^raper c*: Corrpnny. VZe have thought it best to forward our entire comes* pondence file, and while there Is a good deal of the correspond­ ence which will doubtless be of little. If any, value, it neverthe­ less may nsslet you In showinc the close relationship which existed between Minty and reaper & Company during the period of employment. You will note a letter under date of August 19, 1930 signed by J. C. Wilson, written on stationery from the Sheinnan Hotel, Chicago. He Is the person referred to In correspondence as "Byron Wilson*', and is manager of the National v/ool Cooperative Marketing Association, and offices with Draper & Company In Boston, at 281 Summer Street. The contract between Draper £c Company and the National Wool Cooperative Marketing Association was executed by J. B. Wilson, and provides that It relmbiu^ses Draper Sc Company for all corvrisslons nald by Draper Sc Company for securing wool to be marketed through the National Asnoclatlon. The original telegram, dated February 4, 1930, signed G. T. Thomson", Is the telegram Initiating the employment, and its terms v/oro later confirmed at tlio meeting held"between Thomson and Minty In the I3rown Palace Hotel, Denver, Colorado. Thomson Is cn officer of Draper & Company. This matter was originally referred to the firm of■ Nichols & Ptirrett of this city, and we a?’e enclocln" the corres­ pondence between T'jraper Sc Compejaj and that firm, as we handle all trial matters for the firm of Nichols & Stlrrett. * When it became evident that cult v.*ould be necessary the file was referred to this office. You \7ill note a letter from Draper Company to Nichols & Stirrett ’uider date of November 29, 1930, which refers to the original telegram sent from '-’ashlngton by Mr. Thomson. When you have had an opportunity of reviewing this correspondence we v/111 be represent you in the taking of 1&*. Minty’s deposition here. V-^e presume the original telegrams should be attached to his deposition. Mr. Carl P, Shumaker, Vlce-Pi'csldont and Cashier of The T^Offilng National Bank of Casper, can testify, if you think It necessary, as to Minty drawing drafts on Draper & Company from time to time, which drafts were by It paid. At that time The Wyoming National Bank had an assignment of commissions under �Page 2. To Choate, ^al3. & gtiBwart Minty’s contract, a copy of which Is In the flies enclosed herevdth, but leter the contract was re-assigned to Minty. ;.o noL& that you will handle .this matter for us on a contingent basis of 20^of the gross amount received, plus refund of expense incurred» If you will bill us for the expense as It Is Incurred we will be glad to remit our check covering. Very tjmly yours, DURHAM & BACHEIiKR, ny9 ; EPBxW �WM- CHOATE, HALL & STEWART 30 STATE STREET JOHN L. HALL FREDERICK H.NASH JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O, PENGRA CLAUDE R. BRANCH JAMES GARFIELD CHARLES P. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD C.CURTIS MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 CHARLES F. CHOATE, JR. 1899 - 1927 RALPH A.STEWART 190.4- 1928 BOSTON, MASS. April 16, 1932. E. Paul Bacheller, Esquire, Casper, Wyoming. Dear Sir: We have your letter of April 12 concerning the claim of Roy Minty v. Draper & Co., Inc. As we understand the situation from your letter with its enclosure, it would he necessary for us to start suit prohahly in our Superior Court. We would expect to undertake to trustee the bank account or bank accounts of Draper & Co. in order to be sure to have funds available in case of obtaining judgment and also to put pressure upon them to expedite the suit, or even to settle it without trial. We would probably then interrogate the defendants under our practice before taking the deposition of Mr. Minty in Wyoming. Mr. Minty’s deposition would then be taken and we would hope to persuade the court that it ought to be taken on oral examination rather than on written interrogatories. When the case comes to trial, the most important element will, presumably, be the cross exam­ ination of Mr. Bennett and perhaps other officers or employees of Draper & Go. The out-of-pocket expenses Involved in the proceeding as outlined above, other than those connected with the taking of the deposition in Wyoming, should not amount to more than perhaps $20 « $25., Including the financial investigation necessary to locate the bank accounts of Draper & Co. �E. Paul Bacheller, Esquire April 16, 1952 - 2 - In view of the circumstances as we now under­ stand them and of the fact that the primary responsibility for the handling of the case, and particularly the cross examination of the defendants* employees, will fall upon us, we are willing to handle the case for you on a contin­ gent basis of 20% of the gross recovery to us. We would also expect to be reimbursed for our actual out-of-pocket expenses which, as stated above, would be a very small it em. This proposal is based on the assumption that the cost of taking the deposition in Wyoming, Including yoxir fees for that service, will come out of your portion of the total fee. If you desire to have us proceed on this basis, we will be glad to receive the correspondence and telegrams passing between Minty and Draper & Co. or its representatives Very ti*uly yours, JG:MEM �March Zl, 1932 Mr. Charles J. Ohnhauc, Clerk United States District Court Cheyenne, ’jVyomlns Door Mr. Ohnhaus: aoknowledce reoelpt of yours of the 30th, enclosing; copy of Judge’s memorandwn In the natter of Minty vs. Draper Sc C<»npany, together with statement for Clerk’s costs. We called Mr, Minty, and find that he Is out of the city, but la expected to return tomorrow. Immediately upon hie return v/e will procure the costs from him and forward them. Very truly yours, DUKHAM & aAGHELX.Sn, DP 1 S^BtV �Department of Justice United States District court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District of Wyoming CHEYENNE March 30, 1932. Durham & Baoheller, Attorneys at Law, Mitdwest Building, Gasper, Wyoming. For: Mr. i£. Paul Baoheller. Dear Mr. Baoheller: For your- information, am handing you here­ with oarbon copy of Judge’s Memorandum this day filed in civil case No. 2107, Boy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper £c Company, Inc., a corporation, Defendant. An Order sustaining the motion to quash and dismissing the case at plaintiff’s cost, with exception to plain­ tiff, was today entered in this case. Pursuant to the Order of dismissal have taxed the Jlerk’s costs and find there is a balance due amount­ ing to $26.70. As I am required under the law to account to the United otates for these fees, as of the date the, dismissal is entered, will appreciate prompt remittance. As you may desire to take the matter of costs up with your client, am enclosing bill for your conven­ ience. If there is anything further I can do in oonnection with this case, please advise me. MF Snc-S �April 12, 1932. Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 State Street Boston, Massachusetts Gentlemen: We acknowledge receipt of yours of the 9th, and accord’n^ly submit for your consideration claim of Roy S. Minty vs. Draper & Company, Inc. Following the enactment by Congress of the so-called National Marketing Act" there was organised the National Wool­ growers’ Cooperative Marketing Association. There was likewise organized the \'^omlng Wool Cooperative Marketing Association. Draper fr. Company was selected by the National Association to market the wool purchased by It ?n the various wool growing states. Including Wyoming. To encourage growers In the various states to market their wool through the local cooperative marketing association, and thus through the National Association, Draper & Company employed agents and paid them a commission based upon the tonnage they were able to procure in the various states. The plaintiff was employed on the 4th of February, 1930 to represent Draper & Company In i^omlng, and It was agreed that ho was to reoelve per pound for all wool he could purchase. He was able to contract for 4,092,673 pounds, which entitled him to a commission of $11,731.68. Of this amount he was paid $6,288.22, leaving a balance of $5,893,46, vftiloh he claims with interest at 7% per annum (being the Womlng statutory rate) from the 11th dav of August, 1930. Minty was employed by telegram from one H. H, Bonnett, an employee of Draper & Company, and later Bennett come to Wyoming. He claims that after arriving in VZyomlng the terms of Mine's employment were changed, so that Minty was to receive per pound, instead of and Bennett was to receive the other 1/8^ per pound as a sort of overriding royalty. The contract was a written contract, entered into by telegram, and we dispute any alteration of the original terms of the contract. V/e are enclosing copy of a petition -d'lch wo nropared some time ago for service upon rnper Company, but because they were not technically doing business in V.yomlng we could not get a valid service, and find It necessary to Institute suit at Boston, This petition will give you such data as would be necessary in preparing suit. V/e will probably have to rely upon the deposition of Mr. Minty, which can be token here at any timer �If you want th© correspondence and telegrams passing between Minty and Bennett, and Minty and Draper & Company, we will be glad to forward them. After you have had an opportunity of considering this matter w© will be glad to have you advise us on what net percentage to you the suit will be handled. /Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHELLER, EPB:W �CHOATE, HALL a STEWART 30 STATE STREET CHARLES F. CHOATE. JR. JOHNL HALL FREDERICK H.NASH FRANK W KNOWLTON JOSEPH WENTWORTH STUART C. RAND CHARLES O.PENGRA JAMES GARFIELD MARCIEN JENCKES ROBERT PROCTOR MAXWELL E. FOSTER RICHARD WAIT 1899 - 1927 TELEPHONE HUBBARD 5020 RALPH A. STEWART 1904 - 1928 BOSTON, MASS. April 9, 1932. Durham & Bachellor, Caspar, Wyoming. Gentlemen:We have your letter of April 5th Inquiring whether we are in a position to handle a claim against Draper & Company on a contingent basis. We would be glad to handle the claim on such a basis, provided we can agree on the details. Very truly yours, ja/j CXar -< �Department United states of Justice District Court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District or Wyoming CHEYENNE January 14, 1932. E. Paul Bacheller, Esquire, Attorney at Law, 402 Hid west Building, Casper, Wyoming. Dear Sir: My deputy advises that you desire me to drop you a note at Casper concerning docket fee which is due from plaintiff in our civil case No. 2107, Roy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper Sc Corrpany, Inc., Defendant, in which you filed your appearance on January 13, 1932. If you will let me have check for this docket fee, will greatly appreciate it. Very trul^ yours, er k. KHP �April 5, 1932. Choate, Hall & Stewart Attorneys at Law 30 Stat© Street Boston, Massachusetts Gentlemen: V/e have a claim a?’alnst Draper & Company, wool commission merchants of your city, Involving approximately ('6,000.00, Growing out of the breach of a contract of employment In V/yomlng during the year 1930. It will be neceseory to handle the litigation on a contingent fee basis. Vito have had some contact with Draper & Comptiny, and feel satloflod that If suit Is filed a settlement Qon be obtained. V/111 you please advise if you are in a position to handle this Item for us, and if so wo will “Ivo you a oor^loto history, following which you may advise us upon vjhat basis you will handle the sul t for us. (7e take your name from The American ISar. Very tzmly yours, DURHAM & B&CHELLBR, By EP3:r? �Department of Justice United States District Court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District op Wyoming CHEYENNE March 1, 1952» Durham & Bacheller, iLttorneys at Law, Midwest Building, Gasper, Wyoming For: Mr. S. Paul Bacheller Dear Sir: x*ctaiowled.-?e receipt of your letter dated February 29th, enclosing Plaintiff’s Brief in civil oase No 2107, Hoy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper & Gompajiy, Defendant. This Brief has been filed to- day and will be presented to the Court, to?rether with the balance of the record, upon his return to Cheyenne �Pebzniary 20, 1032. Mr. Charles Ohxdiaus Clerk U. 3. Plstrlot Coiirt Cheyenne, T^omlng Dear Sirs We enclose herewith for filing Plaintiff’s I3rief in the inatter of P-oy B. Minty vs. iraper Ss Oomparcy, Civil 2107. Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHEIXER, �Pehruary 29^ 1952 Mr* K. A. Kline Attorney at Law 507-511 Majestic Bldg. Qieyenne, V«yoming Dear Sir: We enclose herewith copy of Plaintiff’s Brief in the Case of Minty vs* rE*ap©r & Conpany. Very truly yours, IXJHHAM ft BACBSLLBH, �February 1938 A* Klino at Law 507«511 liajostlc Dltig* Cheyonzw^ Mr. Lear Sirs We ackno-’led^e 3?eoelpt yours of the 3rd enclosing copy of your brief In the Case of Klnty vs. Draper & Conpeny. We will fon/ord you copy of our brief as soon as It la prepared. Very truly yours, DUFHAIS k BACUE1X£K, EPBiW �M . A . KLIN E ATTORNEY AT UAW 507-511 MAJESTIC BUILDING CHEYENNE, WYOMING February 3, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Bacheller Attorneys-at-Law •Casper, Vfyoming Gentlemen:— I am enc losing herewith copy of brief of de­ fendant on the motion to quash in the case of Roy B. i.-Iinty, plaintiff, vs. Draper & Company, Inc., defendant, which I am filing today in the United States District Court. Very respectiiilly yours, * LUK: EG Enclosure » �Department of Justice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF THE CLERK District of Wyoming CHEYENNE January 2b, 19 32. Durham & Bacheller, Attorneys at Law, Casper, Wyoming. * Centlanen: Acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 23, 1932, enclosing affidavit of Roy B. Minty wtiich was this day filed in civil case No. 2107, Roy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper & Coii5)any, Inc., Defendant, and the copy has been forwarded to Mr. Kline. Very truly yours. KHP �M. A. KLINE ATTORNEY AT LAW 507-5(1 MAJESTIC BUILDINC CHEYENNE, WYOMING January 23, 1932 Messrs. Durham & Bacheller Attorneys-at-Law Casper, Wyoming Gentlemen:— In accordance with the order of the Court in the case of Roy B. Minty Ts. Draper & Company, I am enclosing herewith copies of the affidavits which I am today filing in the above matter. I think you have copies of the affidavits of Joseph P. Draper, George W. Brown and Paul Draper which were filed prior to the first hearing in the above matter. If you do not have copies of such affidavits, please notify me and I will have copies made and send them to you* I am enclosing herewith copies of the affidavits of Charles I. Tuttle, Charles M. Wilson, W. 0. Carleton, and a new affidavit of Paul Draper. I have been waiting to get other affidavits which were supposed to have been sent, but which seem to have either been lost in the mail or sidetracked. I may get them later on so as to be able to file and serve them on Monday. If not, I will submit the case on these affidavits, together with the affidavits of Joseph P. Draper and George W. Brown which were filed at the time we filed the motion to quash. Very respectfully 3rours, MAK:EG Enclosures �January 23, 1932 Mr* Charles J* OhiihauB, Clerk XTblted States Dlstriot Court Cheyenne, Vyowlng Dear Sirs We enclose herewith for filing affidavit of Hoy 5. Minty, In the matter of MXMTZ'vs. & COMPAITZ, XMC*, Civil 330. 2107. Very truly yours, DURHAM & BACHELI^R, By EPBsW �January 22, 1932 Clerk of XJ.S.Dlat.Court, Cheyenne, Wyoming# Dear Sir: As per instructions from Kr- E. Paul Bachellor, I am enclosing herewith affidavit executed by myself. In connectlcffi with the case of R.B. Minty versus Draper and Company, Inc#, Civil Case #2107. Yours very truly. Encl �Department of Justice United States District Court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District op Wyomino CHEYENNE January 16, 1932. Durhaui & Bacheller, Attorneys at Law, Kid west Building, Casper, Wyoming. For Mr. Bacheller. Dear Sir: For your information, beg to advise you that on Friday, January 15th, the Court entered an order in civil case No. 2107, Roy B. Kinty, Plain­ tiff, vs. Draper 5c Company, Inc., Defendant, as follows: At request of counsel, motion to quash service submitted to the Court on affidavits and briefs, each side allowed to and including January 25, 1932, to file any additional affidavits and serve on counsel. Defendant ten days from January 25, 1932, for briefs and service on counsel, and plaintiff ten days thereafter for brief and service on counsel. Very truly yours, KHP �LAW OFFICES OF Maurer & Maurer First Stale Bank Bldg. Douglas,Wyo. CHARLES F. MAURER DKOSABKB RICHARO C. MAURER J A H n A R T ELEVENTH 19 5 2 Mr. Roy Minty Henning Hotel Casper, V^omlng Dear Mr. Minty: Regarding the affidavits which this office prepared for the signatures of Jack Mortal, Charlie Saul and Mike ^illiams, these were prepared but it will be impossible to get Mr. Sauls signature on his until tomorrow evening about 5:30 P.M., at which time he is supposed to be in from his ranch. He will have these duly signed up and wiU. mall them to Cheyenne, in care of the Plains Hotel so that you will receive them Wednesday morning. Tours very truly. MAURER & MAURER N M C s �H I UU & ATTORNEYS AND H I L.l_ COUNSEUOR* AY LAW BUrrALO, WYOMING T. R. HILU ■URTON •. HILI. January 9, 1931 E. Paul Baoheller Durham S: Bacheller, Attorneys Consolidated Royalties Bldg. Casper, YVyoming Dear Mr. Bacheller: Mr. Roy Minty wanted me to secure from Fred W, Hesse an affidavit to the effect that James Hannon was solliciting for Draper Company, Inc., of Boston, Llassaohusetts during the shearing season of 1931. I have just talked to Kir. Hesse and asked him for such an a ffidavit, and he informs me that it is his belief that Draper Company were in some manner or other absorbed by what he termed the National 'Jool Growers Cooperat­ ive Association, located in Boston. I do not know ex­ actly what this means, except that perhaps the Cooper­ ative Association in some manner or other took Draper & Company over; but I am sure you will know what the situation is, Ur. Hesse informs me that our Coiinty Agent, Mr. D. A. Jay, address, Buffalo, Wyoming, could probably give you all the particulars; I would therefore advise you to drop him a line. With kindest personal regards to you and Harry, I am Most sincerely yours Burton S. Hill BSH:HA �WlIiFHID O'LeABY Counselor at Law Che ye xxe , Wyom ing January 8, 1932 Harold Bacheiler, Esq.. Attorney at Law, Casper, '»VyoBiing ’ ^i^ty vs. Draper & Co. Inc, Dear Mr. Bacheiler: I prepared and served on Mr. Kline today, notice of intent to take depositions in the above case. Mr. Kline did not want to admit service of this notice and he explained to me that his reason was because of the fact that he was appearing specially in this matter, and was e/raid that such admission of service mght be construed as a general appearance. 1, therefor, have made affidavit of service and am enclosing you herevzith the notice, together with a copy thereof. zoYours truly, WO»L:LW / ) �OFFICE OFF LOBBY HENNING HOTEL ROY B. MINTY GENERAL COMMISSION WOOL,SHEEP AND CATTLE CAS PER, WYOMING August 22, 1931 Durham and Bachelor, Attorneys, Con-Roy Building, Casper, Wyoming. Attention Mr. E.Paul Bachelor Dear Mr. Bachelor: Will you please, at your early convenience, write me a letter stating the terms of oir agree­ ment with reference to your handling of the Draper lawsuit? As per our conversation in your office at the time this matter was first discussed, you ad­ vised that, to avoid misunderstanding, you would write such a letter and I am directing your atten­ tion to it, believing It has probably slipped your mind. Referring to the Haley matter at Wprland. as vou probably will remember, we were waiting for ?p^?tunlty\o serve Kr Haley in Casper. I an advised that at the present time he is in the Platte Valley and expecting to return the first of the week. What do you think about preparing the papers and hay­ ing them’ready in the event he stops in Casper on his return to Worland? Yours very truly, 6^ R B K * P B �a OFFICE OFF LOBBY HENNING HOTEL ROV B. MINTY GENERAL COMMISSION WOOU.SHEEP ANO CATTL.E CASPER, WYOMING Denver, Colorado,Decemberl9,1931 Meesrs. Durham & Baohellor, Casper, Wyoming. Gentlemen: Whether or not the information herewith is of any value in our case with Draper & Company, is of course, for you to decide. , In 1930 when H.H • Bennett arrived in Casper from Boston, representing said Draper & Company, about the first thing he did was to begin managing for an automobile. After securing prices, etc., he sub­ mitted his proposition to Draper & Company in Boston, and later they authof^ized him to purchase automobile. Immediately on being authorized to make this purchase he bougjit a oar from the Earl Boyle Company. Whether or not the Bill of Sale was made to H.H. Bennett or to Draper & Company, I cannot say. Who the lloense was issued to, I do not know. However, I do know this positively, that when Bennett presented draft to the Wyoming Trust Company for the amount necessary on Draper & Company, Mr. D unn of the Wyoming Trust would not give Bennett the money until the draft was cleared. Bennett was very much annoyed at the attitude of the Bank and left their office in a "huff" and went over to the Wyoming National Bank where he received the money immediately, and went back to the Ford office and paid for his car. When the wool buying season was over according to agreement with the Ford Company he turned the car back at a value fixed at the time of purchase. Now, later. In 1931 the same procedure was follow­ ed, except that in purchasing a oar in 1931 he made a very similar deal with the Chevrolet Company receiving the oar at the beginning of the wool buying season and turning it in at the time he returned to Boston. �-2- Anotho' point which might be well to invewtigate is who the Policy on this car was issued to* I do not remember with whom he took this Policy in 1930, but in 1931 the Bon Company wrote the policy* I remember this instance about the Insurance particularly, because of Bennett’s conversation with reference to his firm's liability in case of accident, whom he was most anxious to protect. If the above is of any metfit I believe you will ha'be no trouble whatever in confirming the same from records in Casper. I am leaving today for Oakley and if you wish to advise me with reference to this or any other matter, you will find me there. Yours very truly. �1206 A WesterI^ LUi-jJ iw SERVICE DESIRED' DOMESTIC CABLE TELEGRAM FULL RATE DAY LETTER DEFERRED NIGHT MESSAGE NIGHT LETTER CABLE LETTER UNION WEEK END LETTER Patrons Bbould obeck class of service desired; otherwise messase will be transmitted as a (ull-rate \communication. f NEWCOMB CARLTON. RReeiDBNT J. C. WILLEVER. FIRST VieB-FRMIIbBNT Said the following message, subject io the terms on hack hereof, which are hereby agreed to Deoamber 10, 1051 Hoy B. Minty Oakley, Kansas Hearlnrr Draper and Company Choyenne slxteonth. (Stop) No settlement made. IXJHUAS ^6 BAGHKZiLKR. (C0LI£CT) THE QUICKEST, SUREST AND SAFEST WAY TO SEND MONEY IS BY TELEGRAPH OR CABLE �li lt TO FAVOR THE COMPANY BY CRITICISM AND SUGGESTION CONCERNING ITS SERVICE ftill-rate or Cable-.iii unless its de­ terred character is in­ dicated by a suitable sign above or preced­ ing the address. STERK UNION NEWCOMB CARLTON. PRI.IOINT laol-S SIGNS DL = Day Letter NM = Night Message NL "» Night Letter Leo a Deferred Cable CLT =» Cable Letter WLT - Week-End Letter J. C. WILLEVCR. riR«T VICB.RMSIOBNT The tiling time aa shown in the dateline on tuU-rate telegrama andday letters, and the time of neeipt at datiaattoa'M^bOTra'ra'airmwi^esTisSTAKDARD^lMEr' Received at 138 North Center St., Casper, Wyo. VAlb l93lOEe tO AM 7 26 NL=OAKLEY KANS DURHAM AND BACHELLOR= CASPER WYO=^ PLEASE ADVISE IF POSSIBLE WHAT ACTION DRAPER AND CO WILL TAKE STOP IF WE ARE GOING TO BAT DEC SIXTEENTH I WILL REQUIRE TIME TO RETURN TO CASPER FOR ONE DAY BEFORE THAT TIME WHICH _ WILL NECESSITATE LEAVING HERE THIS LEEKEND= RAY B Ml NTH THE QUICKEST, SUREST AND SAFEST WAY TO SEND MONEY IS BY TELEGRAPH OR CABLE L �Department of Justice United States District court OFFICE OF THE CLERK District op Wyoming CHEYENNE November 9, 1931 Durham 5c Baoheller, Attorneys at Law, Gasper, ^Tyoming* For: Mr. E. Paul Baoheller. Dear Sir: For your information, beg to advise you that the Court this day entered an order in Civil case No. 2107, Boy B. Minty, Plaintiff, vs. Draper Sc Company, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, setting the hearing on motion to quash at Cheyenne, December 16, 1931, at ten o’clock in the forenoon. Very truly yours, MF �M. A . KLIN E ATTORNEY AT LAW 507-511 MAJESTIC BUILDING CHEYENNE, WYOMING June 24, 1931 Durham & Bacheller Attorneys-at-Law Casper, Wyoming Gentlemen: — In Re: Boy Minty vs. Draper & Co«, Inc, I am enclosing herewith copy of special appear­ ance and motion to quash and copies of the affidavits filed in support thereof which I am filing this day in the office of the Clerk of the United States Dis­ trict Court here at Cheyenne, I am sorry for the delay in this matter, but it has been occasioned by the fact that I was not able to locate Mr. Paul A. Draper and get his affidavit before Monday of this week. I mailed him two or three letters, but it seemed each time that I just missed him. Very respectfully yours. MAK: EG Enclosures �■-■-'J TH Tffl ilm® . FO9 MB XKUTRICt OF WTOMIW Civil Fo. 2107 ROT D. mm Plaintiff. * WUPKR & CO»PA»r, IBO.^ a CorporatlOBi ' «*>>' '■' - •*• \ ' '*-• * *'«<!.• ■^‘'''' *?> '-M' '■' gmgy OF PUiygiyy Ab noted In Uxe brief of the defendant thia aotlon traa begun In the District Court of the Slghth Judlolal Dla- :';//t^'ot against the above nased defendant to reeover a »oney Judgment Tor a balance claimed to be due the plaintiff for oonmlaalone earned by him while a representative of the defendant corporation In the State of >Vyo®lng during the year 1930. At the time of filing Its Petition for Removal the defendant filed a special appearance seeking to quash servloe of suaiBons made upon It In Fatrona County, l^yonlng, upon the ground that It vas a foreign corporation not transacting business In the State of Wyoming. Evidence was introduced In opposition to defend­ ant’s Motion to Quash, and thereafter the matter was continued f«f» the sut®lsalon of further evidence either by the way of affidavits, depositions, or oral testimony. The Court being unable to take further oral testimony, the matter now stands upon the testimony introduoed by the plaintiff and defendant at the original hearing and affldavltB subsequently filed. At the original hearing the plaintiff testified In his own behalf that he was employed by Draper & Company, ths defendant, �to jnirchase wol f(»* It In the State of WyoMng during the year X9S0, and «ae te he paid a eoBBslsalon upon the poundage eecured hln ^dr the defendant* *nie teatlnony for the plaintiff, la edition, shoved that he eollelted manor wool grovera and proeured for Draper k C«Bpany, daring the year 1080, a large qxxantlty of wool, that he oalatalned an office In the City of Caaper, and, vlth the knowledge and oonaeat of the defendant, displayed upon the glass entrance thereto. In large letters, the name of the defend­ ant, and plaintiff's name as local representative* Be likewise advertised In other ways, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, his representation of them* Through the procurement of the defendant he was appointed an assistant secretary of the Ironing Woolgrowers Cooperative Marketing Association, and was authorised to draw drafts not only upon the National VooXgrovers Cooperative Marketing Association, hut upon Draper & Company as well, and the forms of draft used by him were Introduced In evidence at the original hearing. Zt would seen that, subsequent to the time Ihraper & Company originally started to do business in v^omlng, the method of operation was changed, this due to the enactment by Congress of what Is popularly known as the "Rational Marketing Act* (7 V.S.C.A. et seq*), itoioh, sxonnarlzed, provides for the marketing through nationally organised corporations of various products. Including wool, through national cooperative marketing associations. In pursuance of this Aet there was organized the National Wool­ growers' Cooperative Marketing Association. Local cooperative marketing associations were authorised to market wool through the Mtlonal Association, and with Its facilities, but this advantage. If It can be so designated, was denied Individuals. This aeoounts for the organisation of the Wyoming Woolgrowers Cooperative Marketing Association, and by marketing wool through the latter �organisation, automat!oally made it a member of the National Aaeoolatlon. In order to become a member of the local organisation : It la only necessary that local voolgrovere market their wool . throu^ the local cooperative asBoolation» Draper Coi^mny, its following the organisation of the National Aeeooiatlon* exclusive sales agents. We ^wn have this altuatlcms A local woolgrower beeomes a member of the local cooperative association by marketing hie wool through the local association, understanding and knowing that It will be sold eventually by Draper & Company as exclusive sales agents for the National Woolgrowers Cooperative Marketing Associa­ tion. In order, then, to Inorease tonnage to be handled by the defendant company they send in to the various territories, during the wool-buying season, their representatives to encourage local growers to market their wool through the local cooperative associa­ tion, thus through the National Association, and finally through Draper & Company. Drafts for advances are drawn upon the National Association, and the advance is repaid iftxen the wool is ultimately sold by Draper & Company, so that, instead of buying and selling direct, as had theretofore been the custom. Draper A Company indirectly, throxigh the local and national associations, buy for the purpose of re-sale by them either on a stated commisalon or salary. In any event, it is the tonnage they are able to acquire from the different localities which determines the voltsse of busi­ ness to be done by them during any given season* The mere fact, if it be a fact, that the defendant \ " M i;" eox*poration failed to eoBg>ly with the foreign corporation laws of the State of wyomin;::, can be of little, if any, significance in determining whether they were doing business in W>omlag* If all foreign corporations complied with the corporate laws of tibe various states the question of when they were or were not doing �business would no ver arise, so that. In thio case, the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary of state can scarcely be of benefit la determining the status of Draper & Company in Wyoming during the year 1931 * The plaintiff testified that during the year 1931 Paul Draper, President of the defendant corporation, and a person upon whom service of sunsaons may be made (W.C.S. 1920, Seo. 5631) was in Wyoming, addressed various conventions, and was here for the purpose of promoting the business with which he was connected. It was while he was here transacting business for his company that he was sez>ved with process. There is no doubt but that Draper was in Wyoming, and there la no doubt that, while he was here, he was so served. Counsel say in their brief that his visit to Wyeadlng was for purely personal reasons, and upon the Invitation of the Wyoming Woolgrowers’ Cooperative Marketing Association. This Is scarcely justified by the evidence, and even the statement of counsel shows that his presence in i^omlng, even If upon the invitation of the Wyoming Vfoolgrowers’ Cooperative Marketing Association, was, nevertheless. In connection with the business of Draper & Company, as wool merchants, because he attended a conven­ tion of wool growers sftiich was then in session at Oasper, and for the purpose of explaining to them "the advantages to be derived from the cooperative system of marketing their wool through the Watloxial Wool Marketing Corporation*. Certain It Is that during 1931 Draper & Company had representatives in Wyomlns, how many we do not know. Ki a sick was one, and H. H. Bennett another. William J. Mr. Bennett had sufficient authority so that he was authorized to and did draw ■ drafts upon Draper a Company, his employer, and for aught that appears the drafts were all honored. Counsel cites Section 6S33 W.O.S. 1980 as being an exclusive method of service of subsbcab upon a foreign corporation. �and eltea, In support, certain deolaion.of nisi prlus courts of Ohio. ’.VyoBilng has apparently never passed x^cm thia aeetlon of the statute, but It would appear to us that the statute aentloned Is not controlling. Ooaeelvahly a foreign corporation night have many esqployees in a given state with no managing agent phya 1 eally present, Sven so, the statute Is penal sal vs by Its terns only, and aay st **Whea the defendant la a forelm oorporatlon having a managing agent In toLs state the servlee wr be upon suena^nt. -.-r-r^T^rrr-r At pointed out In Beach v. £err Turbine Company, 843 Fed* 70d, the ob^eot of these statutes Is to give a corporation notlee of the pendeney of an action. It Is seen by 5631 supra that service may be made upon the President, and It would certainly seem to us that service upon the chief officer of a corporation would be the most effective method of bringing to the attention of the corporation the fact of the pendency of an action* As said In Beach v. Kerr Turbine Company, supra, ”The question Involved in this action, however- seems to me to be different and is controlled by other considerations. It does not follow that statutes fixing the conditions under which a foreign corporation may engage in business In a state are to have the same , construction as statutes permitting a foreign corpora4 tlon to be served In a state where it may be foimd. In the former It Is, ofeourae, a more or less continuing - course of business, which Is meant to be regulated, whereas, In tho latter, the object sought la only to give notice to a corporation of a pending action* Ihe tendency is to hold that whatever is reasonably effective for this purpose Is a good service.® In the last case cited, the case of Conneotloutt Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602, 19 S. Crt. 300, 43 L. Ed, 560, digested, It Is saldt ”ln Connectloutt Klutual Life Insurance Company v. Spratley the Insurance company had been doing business In Tennessee, and afterwards withdrew all Its agents from tho state and ceased to write any new business therein. The holders of such policies previously written, as continued in force, paid their premium to the coK^any outside of the state. One of these holders having died, and a contiroversy having arisen as to the liability of the company, one of Its agents resident in Louisville, Kentucky was sent to Tennessee to adjust the �"loss, while there an action wae brought against the company, and a stunmons served on him as the coaspany's agent. This was held to bo a good sorvloe.” In the opinion It la said that "Were the Judgment sought against a foreign oorporatlon Is personal, It is material to esoertaln whether the foreign corporation la doing business within the state^ and, if so, the service of process must be upon sone agent eo far representing the oorporatlon In the state that he nay properly be held In law an agent to receive such process In behalf of the corporation* These requirements were met by the facts above stated"• As heretofore noted, counsel. In hls brief, says that Paul Draper was In Casper to explain to the Wyoming Wool Cooperative Marketing Association "the advantages to be derived from the coop­ erative system of marketing their wool through the Hatlonal Wool Marketing Corporation". In other words, he was In Wyoming at the time of the service in furtherance of the business of the corpoi*ation which he represented. Counsel cites many cases on the question of what is and What Is not "doing business" within the meaning of the corporate laws of the state of 'doming, and other states, yet, in our opinion, that question Is foreclosed in this district by ths decision of the Court in ths oass of McCarthy Sheep Company v. Sllberman & Sons, 290 Fed. 512, In which this Court held that a foreign corporation, purchasing annually In the State of Wyoming wool during the wool-buying season, through agents sent Into the state at the beginning of the shearing season, constituted doing business In ^^omlng, and service upon one of Its agents, who was also Vice President and a director, constituted good service. lhe fourth point made by defendant in his brief Is that the return of the sheriff of Natrona County Is defective* This point, we believe, we could well Ignore, for the reason that It Is net one of the points made by defendant In Its Motion to Quash, It �relying, la such motion, exoluslvely upon the contention that at the date of service It was not doing business In V/yomlng* Counsel seems to concede, In his brief, that the objection Is rather captious and not well-founded, nor does he deny that service of a copy of plaintiff's petition was made upon defendant. The quota­ tion fs«OB 50 C,;r. at ^7 Is doubtless a correct statement of lav, but It Is significant that the author merely says that ths return should show coapllinoe with the statute, and does ndt say that. If the return la defective, It Is neoeaaarlly void and deprives the Court of Jurisdiction. Xt Is well known that returns, If defective can be cured at any time, and, aS heretofore noted, counsel made no point of such alleged defect In his Motion to Quash. The sustaining of the jurlsdlctlcm of thia Court to the plaintiff Is vital. If the Court refuses to entertain jurisdiction the plaintiff Is virtually without resHsdy, because It would mean that he would be compelled to Institute his action in Massachusetts and the expense, as compared with the amount Involved, would be prohibitive. It is not a favor we are asking of the Court, to accept jurisdiction and proceed to hearing of the Case on the iserlts, but It Is something iCiloh we believe we have a right to ask as a matter of lav, as, under the facts in the eases cited, there Is XU) question but that, during 1020 and 1021, Draper & Coagmny were engaged In Wyoming In business. The fact that their method of doing business was Indirect rather than direct should not be of ocntrolllng significance. Respectfully submitted, *AWS5^b’ Tor TTaTn-llTf 7 -7- �IN TKS fflJWHf DBTHIOT OF ■ ; 'IRTOIN AllDv .W' TOB « • * * t •'»>• •<# * »* • » • • «ih« 0 *«•>>»« *0 • ♦JI-# • «>* • • » » « « • • ' ■ t Plaintiff, i ♦ • • < • ■■•■ ■ I * VB * DR/vPBH ) .' s ■ ) &CO!I?AIfT> IKC., a corporation* ' j IMtm&K&tt s 9szsr or bitokdaot oh motion to quabm. «aa orUlmXXz temght ia tto Qtstrlot court Ot Nftt^aa county* Vfyoiain^# sorrloa of swactons vas aada upea one BtttX X* l>raport president of the defesidant oorporatlon. The return Of the eherlff reoltes that aerrloe was uade "hy dsHrorlng to Paul At Draper* prmldent and agent far serrioe of Draper A Company* lao. a true and oorreot copy of the BUnraona,”otOe Defendant In due time filed Its petition and bond for the rojaofal of said eause to this Court* and* after suoh rcBaoral had been effeeted* appeared epeelally herein and moved to quash and set aelde the flwrvloe of awomone and tha sheriff* s return of service on Wie grounds that the defendant la o forolcn corporation organized under the lane of the 3tate of Maseaohuaetts* and that on the 16th day of April* 1931* the day of such cttOTpted service of eu^one* and for a long tlae previous thereto* defendani had not traneaeted or oarrled on any business In the state of tryomlng* and that it did not have any <fflee* a^nt or plaoe of buelnees dnthsid State} and also for; the further reason that the said Paul A* Draper wae not on said 16th day of April* 1931* an agetrt Of Nyoning* and had never been such rigent* state on said d^to defendant la the rtate that he vas la this s a visitor and att«|dUkt at a sie0iMg ot �the vooX Gloverb Aaaooiatlon to apoak to th«M upoa the a<»an« tagOB of tho OMporatlTO plan of marketing wool. By ogroement of eatuuieX for the reapoctire parties> snia mo* tion to r^uaah is sulmilttea to the Court for Its decision upon affi* davits filed In behalf of the respeetlTe parties and upon writtoa briofa. ■ ’I;*' Bxsoessxcm or w The evidenoe oleorly shoes that the defendant Is a foreign corporation orgenlKSd under the lews of the State of Massaohusotts with its headquarters and prlnolpal place of business in said statei th^At it has never ooiaplled with the laws of the State of Wyoming, relative to foreign corporations doing business in said state* and has never appointed an agent f'or service in said state upon whoa service of process might be made* All of these facts are conclusively shown by the affidavit of W* 0« Carleton* deputy secretary of state for the ^tate of Wyoming* The evldenee further shows that Paul a. Draper, the persan upon whom plaintiff attempted to serve process* la the president of the defendant; th; t he was not transactin^s or oarryln^^; on baslnesa for the defendant in thia state on April 16, 1931; that he had never transGoted or o rried on any business for dafondent in this state; and that he was not on said 16th day of April, 1931, or nt any other time, the m^n^lng agent or other agent of defendant for the transac­ tion of business In this state* Further, there Is no evidence to show that Paul Draper had ever been In the State of Wyoxalng* prior to said April 16th, 1931. The evidence further shows that Paul Draper came to Wyoming at said tiiae for purely personal reasons and not on any business or matter eonnoeted with Draper Oompany* He muss here upon the Invita­ tion of the Wyoming Wool Co-operative Marketing Association to attend o convention of the wool growers of this state* which was then in session at Casper and to explain to them the advantages to be derived �eyetea oC aaHcetlng their vooX thrmii^ the Sia* from the tional v<ool tforSaitlng Corporetlon* He case here ae a prlTate Indlrld* ual and not a« an agent or roproseatstiT© of Draper & Oosipany* mo. Thia fact Is of the highest ImportancQ, for, if this aerrloo upon iwl Draper should he held to be e^ood serrioe upon Draper & Company, Ine.» then It would xaeho no dlfferexuie where Paul Draper mle^t sbi> In these United States for pleasure or for other purely persMoX reasons* ser* Ties upon hla la suoh Jurlsdletlon vsuld he ssnrloe upmi Draper & con* pony* Ino., In that jurlsdletlon* a pro^sltlon that Is absurd upon Its very face* Ths evldenoe also shows that Draper a& company, Xne« was formerly eneaged in the wool merohandlslng business with offloes at 281 swa&er Street* Boston, ?4assaehusetts» The erldenee of its offloers end agents also olearly shows that during the ymrs 1900 and 1931 It did not pur« ohase any wool any where In the Vnl^d States, but noted solely as the exolusivo sales agenl of the National tTool L'urkOtlMji Corporation In the sale of wools consigned to said corporation by the different wool growers oo*operatlve organlssatlons throughout the United states. These faots are shown by the affldarlta of Paul Draper, the president of the defentaant, Joseph D» Draper, Its treasurer, end George W« Brown, Its aeereatry and assistant laeasuret* Xn addition to the testimony of these witnesses, Charles X» Tuttle of Salt City, the western representnt Ive of the defendant and a asa In a position to know the foots files an affidavit In which he st^^tes that’ after February, 1930, ^Draper fe Ci^apeuy, Xnd» did not purchase any detoestle grease wools; In ths state of T/yoming or elsewhere in the United tates,” end Charles M, Wilson of isoKlnlsy, lining, the secretary of the rzyomlng Wool co-operative Marketing Association makes affidavit that he knows of his own knowledge that the defendant did not purehase any wool in the ’^tate of Wyoming during the year 1931. From the very nature of his work, 2<ar» Gilson was In a position to know the faets In regard to whloh he testifies. It Is true that plaintiff has filed certain affidavits In idileh it la alleged as a eonclusion that Draper & company were engaged In business In this state In 1930 and 1931. (3) But, as stated In the �preceding paro^aphSt we have here the affidavitb of fire prominent busiaeaa men oaoh and every one of whom Is in a position to know what are the fnots la rogaM to the defendant osrrylng on boslness In this state In those years and eaoh any every looking affidavit that the defendant did not purohase any wool In this state or elsewhere In the united states during the year X031* Oan this court helleve that men of tha hl^ httslness standing of these mn wmild oomlt perjury or teetlfy falsely la regard to this matter* and to do th^t especially la a ease of this kind where their testimony eould so easily proven IM be false If It were untrue? If Dwaper company* Xno* had bought s single wool ollp In thlc^ state during those years* the records of sone express office or freight offloe would show the shipment of that wool to the defendant and the solXer of such wool could also he obtained as a witness to pr^e such dale. Onder such olrowstcuwes It Is absurd to contend that ths defendant purchased wool In Wyoming In 1930 or 1931* Tt is true that ths plaintiff hs» asde s fe^ls effort to ever* e<»ss the testimony of these wltnessesa one Jflueass He has filed the affidavits of Cunnln^aa end one Alex Healy to the effedt that each of thm knows of his own knowledge that one william y, Klsslok was tta* ' >leyed by and solicited business for xsm^er h Oompanyt Xnc* of Boston* Mss8« during the wool buying season of 1931.” Weithar of these affi­ ants sh0W3 or attempts to show In his affidavit by what means he has actual knowledge In regard to who ar© the employees of a corporation whoso offices are located In the City of Bof>ton» more than two thousand nlles away. Neither of these affiants states where he resides or what his oesupetlon may be« ?xt thia point* we wish to call the Court's attention to another significant fact about these affidavits. They both allege that the said Klsslok solicited business for brapsr a company* Xnc. In Wyoming. I^ey do not allege that Klsslok bought say wool or sKde any oontraot of any kind for and In behalf of the dtifendsnt. Xf It be e fact*as etsted by these witnesses* that said rlsslek aoUolted the sale of wool la beMlf of the defendant* why Is plaintiff not able to produce one single wool grower to make affidavit thnt the defendant purohf.aod hla wool O3?op during the year 1930 or the year 1931. ( d ) The reason of oouree �It obTioue* riaalok did not Rollolt the parchaae of or purohese &)17 «doX for dofeftdant In thia atate In 1931, hut, as stated In ths Affldw&t of Mr. Charles V ■' ■i-K:-. --/'.- ' V ■i. ' Wilson, said Kleslok « ttoXlolted ce3rtr?in wool erowors of ths state of WToalas to heoQBKS mer^hera of ti» Wyoming wool oo-operatlrs Karketlnf; Aesoclf^tion and to market their wools through said eorporatloat ©nd that acting for and in behalf of arid Association did contract to puxKJh^se and did puroh?3ae tQT aeld Aseocictionjoortaln orope of wool In the stat© of in the y@£^r 1931,** This la the ststSEiont under o th of a mfln who is willing to gf.n hie raaldottoa snd ocoupf tlon f?ad to state fnots eo that the court wiy see and uadaratanfi that he la In a position to fcnftw the mots In regard to whloh he la toatlfylng. HSr. Wllaon Is the secretar/ of the wyonlns Wool CO-Oporativs Wtrkatlng Aasoclatloh. Mr, Klaeloic worked with hl« In 19S1 end under his directIona as an assletant seeretary of said Aasoelr tlon, further «r, ^ly^s affldartt stetsd that Mr, Klsslofc la now In hie e^loy. Where le Mr. KlseloJt'B affidavit ss to -;at»eh'affM»wlt eOnld Mva Ossily hsa* •htalaod hy pltslntlff and ho could have testified to ths fasts and to oonolualona, , lOalatiff in his oral testlttonsr in open court tried to leave f the inpreoslon with the Court th^t he was still in the employ of the defend.mt and la support of his olaia that defendant was engaged la business in ^yeaiing during the year 1931, ho Introduced in evldeaee a ^to i^mriag <^t upon the door of plaintiff*© office in the Henning (Hotel in «»e City of Gasper appeared the words " Representstlvo of Draper & company, lao .” Hut plaintiff*© oral testimony also shewed that he had purehased no wool for the defendant during the year 1931 or aftn? Auguot, 1930. Plaintiff also adaltted that all the wool that he purohaeed during the year 193G ©nd during the very tlae that he ol^las that he wae employed by the dofwdant and for uhloM serrloes he seeUs to recover In this action,wa8 palA f»r by hla with Irnrts arsw bf J»l» MPsa W wool Uarkettnp; Corporation oBd IHat hs was sa B|Wi«lBa». . sogretary of ths wyoainc wool, Co«0p<pfat ire order thAt ho might teaw suoh drafts la the j^gas of said Aen^latlo^ In i^ynent for the wool so Plaintiff furtbar tootifioa �to pwrahese vOol during the Ihatt all wool growars from ha season of 1990 thavahy autozaatiaally haooao osabers of said Aaaoolatloa* ibafaskdaaat does not aara at thia time to go lu^ the marlta of elalm ngalnst tha dafaadaat> ^t oartalnXyt if tha persona irtko oontrnoted with the plaintiff to sail their wool oUpa through him In tha year 1930, hy auah contraot and sale haoana aamhara of tha mins Wool 0o*0pe3ratlve iTarketing /^sTOOiP^tlon# end ware paid for their wool with drafts drawn in tha name of said Asaooietion upon the National Wool '^terhoting Oorporatlon» it is mthaa? hard to undorstaad Just how Orapar & company* ino* by these aots oaa ba said to ba doing bueinaaa in thia state in the year JU^SO* X>afondant also wiahae to oali the Court*a attention to the taa» tiaony of Paul Draper to tha feet that if the plaintiff had had tha 'mum Of Draper & CompanyIno« plaoad upon the door of hie offiot in ,/ Caapar sM had edrartiawd himself as agent of ibmpar & cotapnny in tha by Uia Henning HOtalt that such sots ware entirely without tha knowledge or authorisation of tha defendant* surely plain* tiff oan not bolatar up his ccse by auoh rapraaaatations, whieh* so far ns the erldenoe shows* were probably made after tha controversy had arisen botwaen plaintiff and the defendant* Xn our consideration of the oaae, we have not overlooked tha affidavits and depositions of other witnesses In behalf of tha plaintiff* but oa wa view It such testimony Is too indefinite to have any probative value* the affidaylts Qt Morton* J'* Walter williaas and Fred Siamma are to tha affaot that certain individuals came to them In the year 1931 and represented that they ware in the employ of tha defendant aaft W to tfeq aefe^»«tePt but to the Wyoming wool cc^Opagatiye fferteatlng Aseeaiatloa* these affi* davits support tha alaims of defendant and tha stntanants of its wit* ; masaas and aepeolally tha affidavit of charols it* Wilson* Further even if these perties did represent to affiants that they were in the employ of the def endent, such representations are not aompetont to prove agency* No rule of law is better established then thia* See 2 corpus Juris* Page 935 and authorities there cited. the affidavits of John P* Nolan* Arthur TamuXaro and Bony - Mahoney are also of no probative value* { ^ ) They merely show that one H. a* �Bennett drew oertnin iirev oertatn drafts upon t&s defendant, tsr. 01uub« M« Wilson testifios that Besinett was sent out here hy the Katioqal wool Marketing Corporetlon to relue wools purolmsed by the Wyoming Wool Co»Operatlve Marketing Assoolation and that he solieited busi* nesfl for said Assoolatlon and was rippointed an asolet'int secretary of said Association. Owing to the close relations between the Na­ tional Wool Marketing Corporation, the Wyoming Association and Draper Company* Ino., there is nothing about these drafts. Kwea if it be true that he purchased on autoaobile for hinsolf and paid for such car by a draft upon the defendant* such fact is clearly iasuffieient to eatablii^ agency* er to prove that Draper & Company* Zno* was doing bueine^js In the state of Wyoming in 1931. AS has Wmi ixsretofore stated* i^ Drajker h company* Zac. did ?Any buBiness of any kind in the state of laming ia 1931* and if Bennett* Kissiok or any other party was really engaged in the trensaotlon of bUBlneset fer'l?raper^ company, Tne. in thia state in said year* it io oort tlnly passing strange that with the number of witneeaes who are willing to swear to such oonolusions* plaintiff is not able to produce a single witneea who transacted any business with Draper & company, Inc. in thia state during that year? and* what is still :nore remrkable* plaintiff’s witnesses who testify so glibly aa to these various persons being employed by the defendant* are not able to testify affirmatively to a single sale* a single purchase* or a single contract of any other kind* whieh these alleged agents of the defendant entered into in behalf of the defendant in this state during said year or the previous year. Surely these alleged agents of the defendant must hove been very poor aolioltora* if they did not enter into a single contract in behalf of their principal during one entire ycara plaintiff has not produced a single witness who has testified to a single Item of business of any nature transacted or oarried on by the defen 'ant in this state during the year 1931, The affidavits of plaintiff’s witnesses state mere conelusionfi* instead of .^tatln^: ff^cts from which the Court mey be able to draw its own conclusions as to whether or not defendant was doing business in this state during said year* �under n state of ths evldsnssf ho* ssa this court or any uourt find as a fact that ths defaadaat was doing huslnaas In ths itJtats of WjKnalng In 193Xt Or srsa la 1930T if ws think of ths dsfsn- daat as doing huslnsos la Iddts stats during that year* thsss <£uaetlon8 natUThlXy arise* Uhat huslnsas was It carrying on? head :uartera? whoa did It do buslneso with? that business? Were were Its What was the nature of What property did It have In this stats? mneglng agent In this state? eto» Who was Its Plaintiff has not answered these or any alnlXer questions in any of hla affldavlta filed herein* Can this court answer a single (ms of sueh questions Intelligently from ths srldenee adduosd by plaintiff*? And yet ths court must do this. If It should otteopt to find that the defendant was carrying on bU81«> assB In this state so as to render It amenable to the servlos of prooesB herein* The affldavlta filed In behalf of ths defendant stats facts and not conclusions* Vr. CfhftWes M. Witscm In his wffldevlS doss not deal with generalities but states spsolflo fasts from wblsh the Court zaay be able to draw Its own ooncluslcms* soys that he larked with these various parties who are alleged to have been agents of the defendant In 1931* and he tells the Court Just what they did and how they oame to be employed In this state* He says that Bennett* Klsslck* Bannon and Blchards* the G»n who plaintiff claims wore eawi' ployeoe of the defSudeat la this stats In 1931* were wool sag^rts furnished to the Wyoming wool co*Operatlve Marlrating Association by the National Wool Marketing corporation under the tertas of Its eon'* tsraet with said Corpomtlon* to appraise the wool xAirchassd by said AsBoelstlont that eash end every Of said persons were appointed assistant secretaries of said Aoeocletloni and that acting for and In behalf of said Association* they sollslted the wool growers of thia state to become mM^rs of said Asioolstlon end they oontmctcd to purohase and did purohase as agents for said Aesoolatlon certain crops of wool la �Wilson* s affidavit shows exeotl^r what these laea did and by whom they were employed and hie stutemonts are oonflrmed by the affidavits of John R. Morton and J» Walter Wllllaas» two of the wltaesBOs for plaintiffs this state* These men are j;n!<»alaent wool growers of *raHiy state that la the iaonth of June, 1951, lu H* Beaaett sollolted and approached them and requested thett they ship, oonslga or sell their 1951 wool crop to the Wyoming wool co-*Oporative Maxdcet* Ing Corporation and stated thf^t he, the said Bennett, was securing wool for sold Association. W. Morton i.nd Mr. Wllllaas are plaintiff’s own witnesses* Further, in this connection, we wish to call the Court’e attention to the second affidavit of Mr. Paul Draper filed herein. In thnt cffddavlt he states thet his attention has been called to certain affidavits filed by plaintiff to the effect thet the said Bennett and the bald ElsslsM ''had sollolted certain resedeats of Wyoming during 1931 to sell their 1931 wool ollp to Dxraper & C<^x>any, Xao.** speohing ae president of the defendant, in his affidovlt he eeys "that nelldiew the acid Bexmett, nor the sftid tisslck, nor any other party had any power or authority to purchase wool, or to solicit the pureh^ise of wool In behalf of Draj^r & Company, Inc. during the year 1931. And he further states that "If any such solicitation was made by th© said Bennett or the said Kioelok, it was nade without the consent or authority of said Draper & company, Inc." It would hardly seem to be necessary to disewas the evidence further. It conclusively shows that Paul Draper was never the taage** glng agent of the defendant in this state, or Its agent for service of process s tht^t he was In this state on purely personal affairs in April, 1931, at the time that the attempted service of sumons was made upon him in this eaee; and that during the years 1930 and 1931 the defendant did not do or Carry on any business of any kind or el^raoter in this state| and that it was not engaged in business in Wyoming on April 16th, 1931. For theae reasons upon the evidence alone, the service in the onse at bar was and is insufficient to con* fer Jurisdiction ux>on this court. �A BBOT Rsrio 0? ran vnmiwo ctatotbs rsutite to swricex UP0» mSIGW COHPORATIOHS. rae sexvioe in thie esse van mad© bjr sheriff of Katroaa aountXi WspofflizM;* u><m proeesa issued out of the Distrlot court of that oounty* In the f'tate of Wyoming there are four different stat* utory proTisions relating to eorvlco upon oorporatlonse seetions &048 end 5044 provide for the appoint^nt of a statutory agent for serviee of proeess* Those seetions ^^re inappXioahXe here heeause the reoord is clear that no such statutory agent for servioe was ever ^^ppointed In this state by the defendant which is a foreign corporation organised under the laws of the state of Massashusetts* Of course, the return of the sheriff states that Paul Draper was the agont for servloo of the defendant oorpor- tlon in this state* This, howeveri is a aere eettelMiea the eheriff unsupported hy the f^icts, as the affidavit of the deputy seeretary of state oonolu* aively shows that defendant had never appointed any agent for eervioe of proeess in thia state. The Wyoming Civil Code eontains two seat ions relative to service upon corporations end in the abaenee of the oppoiataent agent for eervioe* these sections oust eontreX*^ They ere ce followsi " ^^eotion ^031, A owamdtts against a oori>oratlon nay be aorvdd upon the president, mayor, ohaimnn ot president of the board of directors or trustees, or other chief officer, or if its chief officer be not found in ths county, upon its cashier, treasurer, clerk, seoretrtry, or osneging agent, ’’©to* Sectiou 5433, When the defendant is e foreign eorporatioa hewing a ■anagiss agent in this state, , the serviee any be upon autdx ^ifroat,” rates provisions of the Wyoming cod© were t<<k©n from the Civil cede of the state of Ohio, and the general rule of construction is that when the legislature of one state adopts the statutes of another state, it also adopts the construction placed upon those Btetutes by the courts of that state. The courts of Ohio have always Iwld that these two sections of the code are not only separate and distinct, but they also hold that Section 5631 applies exclusively �to 4oB03tio oorporatloBM and that Sootloa 5053 applies exclusively to foralga oorporatioas * Xa the ease of Goode * DrugKdats Aosoolatioat Id Ohio neo * the court said that ** Xt is the aeoopted role in this state that seetions 5041 and 5043 of the nevised statutes rolstlnc: to sorvioe upon a eorpopation are exeluBlTe of each other, and that seotion 5043 provides the only means of obtainiTi^ eexe^ioe on foroi^'n corporations * *• W’ •5 in the sane case It was held that "In order to sustain service whioh has been made on an offioor of a foreign corporation, it pust be made to appear that he ia the mayger of tSeT^uaynyse oori^rqtfon^ within the state * or come" suSs^^ Th© above deoision of the Ohio Circuit Court is referred to in the case of Beach v. Turbine company * S43 Fed * 706, and the Court in the latter case says that it is a correct statement of the lev of Ohio relative to service upon foreign corporations * Xn the case of Foote v« Omtral Aaorieaa cennraeroial Co , * Ohio C« D. 376 * Id the court held that a director of a foreign corporation who was in the State of Chid collecting payments on suhaoriptlons for lands was hot a * managing agent ” within the purview of the above statutes end that service upon such director was in sufflo lent to con­ fer Jurisdiction upon such foreign corporation * Xn the case of state ex rel * 7 C * * C { N. S. ) 557 * the return of the sheriff recited that the surtnons had been served upon one said company * Kilis v« King Bridge Ooxnpany * X. Riggs, the superintendent of he being in charge of the usual place of doing business ot said coE^any,” The court held the return to be defective and saldj *• There is no averment in the return that M. X. Biggs is the ffl^naglng agent of said company. He is deacribed merely as a Guperintendont« This doce hdt appear to be a proper service and tlw aotlos to quash service **** '* ^ * ’‘* must be sustained *** Bafondant will admit that the deoisions of the Ohio Circuit eourta which are Intermediate appellate courts ere not the highest authority but they have been followed in the U * fl. District Court for the District of Ohio, and they are cited here to show that under the decisions of the Ohio courts involving a statute identical with the Wyoialnr: ritntutes under which service was atteapted to be mode in the �oone at bar, afUtth eervice an4 the alwrtff’a return thereof would bo quashed aad de SuoaffMleht to confer Jurisdiotlon owtr the paraon at the <tof«i4taiat foxeisa eorporatlon. suoh‘ holding of the Ohio oourtB would undotthlodly ho followed by the oourta of hho State of Vanning where thle suit was orlglBslly brou^t end la whleh thio serwloo ?«al VK^er wae aerer the 'lHaa<bl« agoat" ttttnphed to be nado. of the defendant In this atfite and newer had anything to do with the transaotlon or carrying ot of any bualnesa of the defendant In thle The serrloo of swb^jbb upon hla and the return of the sheriff state. are both clearly insufficient under the laws of the state of Wyoming, and being Insufflelent to confer Jurisdiction In the stoto courts, they are Insufflelent to confer JurledictIon on this Court* ; 'III . mrxw Of WK W TSDfflAL CISBB WaSKS 1 It would hardly aow to he nccessarz for the defendant to prolong this brief as its right to hnvo the relief aeked for in It# motion to quash has boon clearly doxoonstrated In the preceding pages hereof* However, wo will call the court’s leading federal decisions where this sfias t tent ion to some of the uestioa has been raleed* supreas Court has oftmi announced the prlrolples of law applicable to this and cU alxailar eases* Ono of the latest decisloae by that court Is the ease of Rosenberg Bros* a C3o» 6? t* Curtis Brown co*, BOO n* s* 316, 373, with opinion by Mr* Justice srandols* Tn that esse the dofendant was an Ohlahoos corporation dealing in »oa*s clothing at Tulsa in that state. Its president was In Sew tork tompomrlly ehen he wns served wlto process in a dd action. It was aliown by the evidence that ho wae in Hew York for the purpose of par<^sing goods for th© corporation at the tlao ho wao swrvod with j^oeoos* The Cletriot cowt granted a notion to quash the service* and on appeal to the V. S. supremo Court, the decision was afflxned* The court, saidi " The defondaat acrer applied under the foreign corporation �Xciini for a llotnaW to <o bxulnoe* In wr Tneitf nor dlA It at any time euthorlzo suit to bo hrou^t against It there* It nererhad an established pXsee of bialness In now IRirlu nor did It regularly oarry on business there* Tt had no property in now Tori and no acoat, officer or stooh holder resident there* Its only connection with new York appears to heve been the piwehase there from tlzae to tlzae of a large part of the Borehahdlso to be sold la Ito store ot TuXea* ” The suproM Court also said that It was of little legal sig* nlfloaaoe tdiether the president wns there to buy goods or not at the tine that he was oorrod with j^reeoee la s^jld ootloat that rlalts of the offloera of the eompany on such huelaooo eymi If oeeurrlng st regular Intervals» would not warrant the Inferenoo that the corporatloa was present within the jurlsdlotion of the state* The court also said that as the corporation was not present In the state and doing business therein* the fact that the eauae of action arose within the state was Inaaterlal* In the late case of Pedple^s‘l^baeee company v« lasrloan To* huaee C($ksU9eay* V» 3« et» Oe 1* Xd* the supreme Court said tluit a cox^joamtion oan be acid to be found la a district only when It Is prepoAt In that dlstflet by Its offieersmd agents carrying on buetoess of the eor- nation# And in the ease of Green v» C« B« a Q* Railway company, son n* S* 51 !• Bd» Bid* the Court eanowneed the rule that pare pollcitetion of imsineee within a etate je not sufficient to ocnstltute ctoing business in tho sense of Inourrlng liability to warvlce In that JuSla^qtAonj. A case very aiallar to We case st Wr Is the ease of Sslsukas ▼. OrMsemgh Rod Ash Coal Co** Add U* S. Sd* dl U Bd. 937* Ihe opinion was by Chle< fUstloe Vhlte« Xn that ease Were had been an attempted aervloe Bads upon the president of the defendant oompany while he ima toepmwdXr W York City* The eridomoe showed that the corporation had no property or place of business in the tat© of New York* that its president ms in New York only temporarily and was not there engaged In the transaction of any buslnass for the company or on its occounti and that he had no authority to represent the corporation or to transact any business In Its behalf in New York* Ote sezvlee wes quashed and the supremo Court held this to be correct* ( xa ) �A&a tn the ease of Peterson V, Chtoage* Book leXana & Peolflo B' tlway co»» £09 IT« s. 364, SI u sd, 84Xt the Court saitd; « Xt ts settie^l by the deoletone or thSh couit that fO3*olgn eorporotto&e oan be serred with prooeas wlthla the strata only when doing bun Ineos therein, and auoh aCTTlee aiiet be upon an agent who yeiapesents the ooripornttoa by.£jlxie33,>‘'' While there are may more deololona of the “uprono court In vhloh thle question Is Olacunsodt w do not believe that It la nooessary to review or quote from further authorities. If defendant should oonoede as fully established by the erldenee every ooncluslon In every affidavit filed by the plaintiff, every etatewent contained In said affidavits as to what some one told somebody 0X00, yet even then plaintiff bos failed to bring his service of proeeae In thia oeee within the purview of any of the foregoing authorities. If Draper & Company, me. was doing business in Wyoming la 1031, as plaintiff has attempted to show, suoh business even eeoordlng to plaintlff*8 witneem was being eonduetea by Bennett and tnsslek. There is not one word of ebidenee to show that Paul Draper ever rexmw* sented the defendant In this state In any way. Therefore, the servlee made upon him was Inaufflelent to oonfer jurlsdiotion over the defen* doMt, for, es said in the Peterson oase, supra, ^'service must be made upon on sgent irtio represeats the oorporutlon in suoh business.« yurther, therj is no evldenoe in the ease at bar that meets the requirements as announoed by the Supreme Court in the ease of Rosenberg Bros, co. v» Curtis Brown Go., supra* Parax^^sixgthe quotation from that onse on the prededing pages of this brief, The defendant nevor applied under the foreign corporation laws for a lleense to do business in Wyoming; nor did it at any time authorlTie suit to be brought against it in said state. It never had an established plaee of business in ’’yonlng; nor did it regularly carry cm business there* It had no property in wyoialng, and had no officer, agent or stockholder resident there* The defendant might well rest its ease upon the foregoing deeislons of the supreme Court* However, It will call the attention < of th« Court to three dec is ions of the lower federal courts. The pXaihtlff when testifying in his own behalf as a witnees stated that the defendant sent its agents Into the In^et and appraise wool. tate of Wyoming in 1931 to Wtiile this statement has bom shorn to ho �contrary to the fttotn* yet* even If the Court should believe suoh state* aont, aueh aetlon on the part of the defendant would not constitute doing bualneae within the atate* In the oaee of Michigan Lubricator Co* Ontario cartridge 00*1 275 rode 902* the plaintiff had entered Into a ocmtraot with the defendant for the oanufaoture and sale to the defendant of a large quantity of brass parts for prlners for i^eXle which were then to be Qonplotely sseeabled and loaded by the defendant and then sold to the Kddystone Company* The contract provided that these brass parts were to bo nnnufaotured In Detroit and then dsllwered to the defendant at Its place of business at v/alkeravllle* Ontario. The defendant seat agents to Detroit whose sole bpslnees was to Inspect these parts as they were aaaufaotured by the plaintiff before they wore shipped to defendant. The circuit court of Appeals of the sixth clxeult held that the furnishing of Inspectors by the defendant under such elrewa* stances did not constitute doing business la the state of Michigan. Ona of the very best discussions of v/het constitutes doing business In a strste by e foreign corporation so as to make It aoenable to service of process in that state Is to be found in the case of Tllmmem v. Dodge Brothers* 21 Tad. (2nd) 152» In that csae the court quashed and set aside the sexwice of ouraiions. In its opinion It said: " As already pointed out* it is not any business activity which will constitute the necessary ’doing business.* Bcf* erenee to adludioated oases shows that ;Uite generally it has been held thr.t ’doing imsiness’ is not shown by the mere solicitation of orders through employee* oven thi^sugh from an office employing in addition several clerks tad agents where corporation has no property in the state other than the office itself* and where the ooxporr tion In the foreign district passes there upon irtiother the orders shall be aooeptod or not* and* if It does Gooept* deals directly with the cuttoner; nil transaotions being oonpleted out of the state where tho orders nre nolicltod* and where th© agent does not iKive authority to bind the corporation. (Authorities) This is of course ce rrying on business of « oox't;=in kind and extent* but It Is not the carrying on of business by the foreign corpora;! ion ’ in suoh a manner and to suoh an extent as to warrant the inference that it Is present there.* * * • Mainten nee of an office in the district of suit does not neoefisarily conotitue doing bualneses now* on the other hand* does failure to melntaln such office moon that the eorporetlon la not doing business In the district of suit. { Authorities.) Listing of the corporation’s name in the telephone directory, or having its naa» on the door of an office* does not neoesearlly constitute doing business. ( Authorities.) The corporation laust be eyaged in cyrylnr^ on in a manner g aupaty of it'a ordin^y for toIoK "ft wee ( Authorities/) it io thtf manner, �extent and ohnraoter of the sotivltiea Qt eorpomtion tn the dietrlet qT suit whloh Is detenatactlve. T.wreXx Inoldantal and eoIX^^teiaX aotlvlties vtXX not sufflee# ( Authoritioe.) AdrertlainGt will operational mlnton^noG of en office, listing Its n^me In the telephOM dtreotory, or h^vln^^ Its none on a door, while aaterlal, do not neoessasrlXy ooaatltnte ’doing huetnesa*’ * ♦ • ♦ Ao shore stated, no general rule has been In Id down aad eaeh aaae wst depend cm its own faote and clrousw staneea* The poUey of the lev is that a defendant Bay be sued only in the distrlot in which he ia sn Inhabitant or in which he la found, which in the ease of c oorpomtlon Means that it shall be fairly olearly ahown that it le ’doing business’ in the dlatriot In the neaning vhioh is given to that expression by the deolalons* Under section 48 this Jurladletlonal requirement is expresoly etated tihe burden la on the eomglalnlng party to t^ow tjtie lurlijloi'lQi^Tfae^s * ~ .tEUUESa We latost ttot can be said to support th© jurlsdlotloa under the fr^cta in this case Is that it is extremely doubt* fttl» m thia situation it ia better that the prirtioe b© remit* ted to the district where there Is no doubt as to the Juris* diction, before, rather then after, expensive and protmeted litigation hoe been had.” ( Authorities,) Tim last paregmph Bight have be«a written in reference to th* e*^ et bar for each and every word Is applicable to the fasts as shorn by the evidence In this esse* If tho motion to quash be sub* tained, it does not deprive plaintiff of his reoedy. It only relegates him to those courts where there can be ao question of jurlsdletlon raised by the defendant. This leaves only the cose of McCarthy sheep Co. v. silboraan and Sons, 290 Fed. 512, for our oonal derat ion. in that ease, this Court held that service made upon the vlce-praaldent of the defendant eorporation waa ^d servioe. But the facts in that ease were Bsterlally different from the facts in the ease at bar, beoauae in that oase the vloe president of the defendant, David silberssan, had his office and head quarters at Casper in this state, and was himself engaged la purchasing ami at that point for defendant end performing other services for the dsfondant in the state. In that case, also, drafts in paisaent of the wool purchased were drawn upon the defendant and the wool pur* chased was consigned to the defendant In Chicago, On the other hand, in the oase at bar, !4r, Paul Draper, though president of the defendant, had no office or head .uarters in thia 0ate end was not at the time of servioe and never hod been engaged in <uxy bualnoQB in thia state in boholf of the defendant. The drafts In payment for the wool purchased by the alleged agents of th© defendant Bennett and Misslek, and even those used by the plaintiff himself, were .., .(J . . .■ «> - - ■ ■ < ' ■ ■- ' t'-A ■' �J. ’ ' A?.'-'.'-?’ z*': '■■'.■ ■ algn<a b7 all ot tMea a^efi^ not aa te/^■'Wim «? the tefaadaxit, agents 4» - 5- i '> '■ bat a« oatlW^ai ''' , ' " j. ®? tlwi '^yoalne ifool c<>Oporatlvo l^arketliig Asooclatloai aa4 tM toafts drawn by thaso parties la payment for the weoX purehaeH Weve nywa the defendant hut upon the National vool MnrXetlns Cosrporat loa* emd the wool purehaaed by t2mi wa« lUilpped te the National Wool Marhetlng corporation* The natloneX wool Marketing Corporation paid theee drafte axil ehergOd them agalut the aooount of the WyOKzlng wool co-operatlwe Mrketins Aseoelatlont vhieh in turn eharged the eeweral drafts to the reepootlre aoeounta of the grower meahera of the Aaeoelatioa who had produced the wool th«« cold* Wortlxerg the erldenee ahowe that the defendant had no offioe* no plaee of hu«lne«e> and no praperty in thia state* we sail the Court*s attentiC^ th ^eee faoto> eo that the Court nay see end under* et^nd th^t the f^^^cts in ths ease at hex are not at all like the faots la the KoOurthy Sheep Cotnpany oess©i *md th^-t th© deoleion in thct caee is not oontrollin^ la the ease et bar* hut that thia osee ooaaee atrietly within the njles as laid down by the S^reme Court in the oases whioh we have hereinabove reforred te> assftj|h>*wislly within the rule as laid down in the oaae of Sincere w« Dedc^ Wwthera* • *:/ ■ ir. TOs rawRN or THK ^mEKiy? m w^taixy defscyiyb aot is ikbuju FKJISKT TO COWySR JOTISDIOTIOW VPOB TOX8 COW* ^ile this ohjeotion io not definitely eet forth in the notlstt te «es«h filed by w d^eiMbwt to rn® eotion* yet mid motion aska the Court to quash '^nd i’ot nside the WM’sons and the sheriff* a return thereoxst and for that reaaon we believe is suffloimitly broad to inolude any substantial defoete in said return* The sheriff’s return roads as follows: ” the J5tat0 of Wyoiaing ) ^uaty of Natrons I Be. ) X> 6» 0, Housley* sheriff in and for said eounty in the state oforesaid do hereby certify that X s^eeeived the within Bumows at 3:10 o’clock P* TU es the 13th day of Aj^iX* 1931* and served the same on the 15th day of April* ■- �President 1931 by deXlTorlns to Paul A. Draper/and a^-@nt for service of Draper & Compeny, Xno« a true and oorreot eertlfled ^9^ the sfuae# vritassa tend thie loth day of Aprilf 193X« By It, a< o« HWeleyt Sheriff E* Decm> Deputy* *• tie noticed that the sheriff* s return does not state where the serrlse was aad»> or that a copy of tlM petition In said action was served upcm the defendant* The Wealns statute rehitlve to ths service and return of suzivno&s la QS fellows: ” servlee and return of summs* servloe shall be by delivery at any tl»s befere ttie return day» & espy of the suacjons with ^e ^doraenents t^iereon* together with e of the petition to ths defeadent personally, or by leaving a oopy of the sisa^hts azid petition at his usual piaoo of rssldenoe >»»***♦♦ aj^d th© return nuat bo aitdo at the tiise mntloaed In th© writ*, and the tiao and laannor of sorvloe shall be stated in th© ffrlt.” While there say be sc«ae uestlon under th© authorities as to the nsoesslty of th© return stating that th© sorvloe was cotually laado la Matrona County, ’.'^yoLiini’, ths hotter practloe li; for th© rsturn to show where the servlee was nade. On the other hand, there eon be no xuostion that s retun which fel3« to show that th© copy of the maamoas served upon the defnau* daat sontalned all th© ©ndorsenents or lhet a copy of th© petition was served upon th© defemdsnt, vdiers suoh servloe Is reqtlred by the ex* press provisions of ths atetute, Is fal^lly defeetlv©. Th© general xtile la thus atatsd in 5o Cerpu© Turia* page BbV, ** Wl^re It la required that a copy of the|i' petition or iK>mpldin| bs^ibllvered to or left with the 0fdadaat * ♦ * th© return should ahow ooinpll«inoo with au<^ ro* ulrexaeat,’* defocta in th© aervlo© Qt auui^na md petl* tlon ©x^ t^ sheriff’s return ar© dofeot© ttvit might possibly b© cured end for that reason are probably not so vital and do not go ao ooxn* pletely to the Jurledlotlon of the court, as the defeats urged In the preoodlng aub^dlvlelons thia brief, yet the defendant feels Justified in oaHing then to the Court’s attention at this tiae, beoauae It la very doubtful whether auoh defeets In the return of the sheriff ©an be cured In thia court, for the reason that th© sherllf is an officer of the state court and hla return wee aade to that court* ( IS ) �since th© ferofiolag port lone of thia tolot vox** vrlrtos* «• aeoKlaQtally learned that the pXalatlff has filed a lort’Q number of additional affldavlte in reletaaee to defendant's motion to quash* Under the egreoMBt of ouunsel end the notloe fxou this Court eaeh side was given until Januery Sdth, 1932> within vhioh to file in this court and aerre upon opposing oomKsel any additional affidavits which he ffli^t wish to file in this nt- tter. Xn oonfomlty vlth that agremnent, counsel for the defendant on January S3, 193a> sent by registered mall to the attorneys for the plaintiff copies of all affi­ davits filed herein by the defendant or In Its behalf* He received BO affidavits of copies of affidavits from the plaintiff er his attor­ neys > but on January Sftth, 1932, received frcm the Clerk of this Court & copy of the affidavit of Boy B. Minty filed herein, and he had reason to believe and did believe that this was the only additional For these ro^iaons, such additional af­ affidavit filed by plaintiff* fidavits have not been referred to in the preeeding pages of this brief, and under the oircunstnnoes, defendant respectfully subzaits that in all fnlmess such additional affidavits should not be eonsidered by the court in asrrivine; at its decision* We have glanced over said additional ffidavits and while we have not had the time to read then over carefully or to analyze their contests, we believe that wo are Justified in aoying that these new affidavits, like the ones first filed by plaintiff and which we have diseucsed in the foregoing pages of this brief, state merely the ooncluslons of the affiants r^nd do not state the ffiota upon whieh each boacluslons ^re based*' ' The Court of course rooogniaee that there is a vast difference between proving a negattve and proving an affirmative* Xn this case the plaintiff has the affirmative of provlnf^ thE^t defendant was 'doing business* in this state, and that Foul Draper was not only the president of the defendant but that he was also the person who represented the defendant in its business transactions In this state* see Peterson v* Hallway 0O« and the quotation therefrom on nige 14 of this brief* �He ean act prove these fnota by nerely nXloglng that w» en- goeed tn bualaeaa la sryoalnst as euoh stsiteaant Is e oere eonolxieioni neither ©an ho prove those foots by flXine affidtivlts to the offeot that Doanott, Mieaioh vt al* ww* tsapl»y»®« defendant, for even if that were true, it wouM paon nothing, or that euoh pereons eolloItod buslnoee for defendant la this state, for that Qiao would mean nothing, unless it be further shown that they entered into oonti-sots of soete hind in brtjalf of the defendant, as we have shown, the supreaw Oeurt has held in the ease of Green v, hallway co. 806 n* S, 880, that the aero solicitation of business within a state is not doing business to said Bt:.te, 30 as to subject a foreign corporation to the servloe odP prooesB In said state* The offleers end agents of the defendant In general eharge of Ite entire bualnese operations toatify positively that the defon* daat hod no offlee> plo^ of hufilness or property in the rtate of Wyonlng cind that it did not transact or carry on any business of nny kind la said state during the yearn 1930 and XtSlj and they further testify that Paul A* Draper wae In Wyoming In April 1951 for purely personal reasons and not on any matter of huaiaees for defendant* in addition MT. Brown, the aeeretery of the defendant, etatee that said corporation had never authorised Paul A. Draper, or any other person, to represent defendant in this state op to act as its agent there* To overcome the feree end effect of these affidavits, the plaintiff Must show effimatlvely some hueiness trMsaetion of scaae kladt some contract made and entered into, or acm vork carried on hy in tiile sUto, hefore the Court would he authorised to find that defendant was doing business la this state la the jwi 1830 bM 1931. And he is also obligated to show effinBstively that mul A. Druper wae la charge of such huelaess operations of the de* fendaat in thle state in the year 1931• Plelatlff has filed numerous affidavits in this action, hut in not one of those affidavits is there mention of e single pur* ehase of wool made hy the defendant er of a single ooatraet of any kind entered into hy the defendant in thia state la 1931. Further, defendant has no hesitation in saving that plaintiff can not show �one single pureh:bo of wool niade by defendant in this state in X931> or one sinaXo shiittent of wool oonsiened to the defendant froa this etate in said yeoft or one single eontraot entered into by the hsaid year. further not a eingXe witness has testified to a single set of TauX Draper that eouXd be construed as showing or tending to shew that he was in eharge of defendant's basiaess operations in this BtQt©> or that he was in this state for any other purpose than stated in defendant’s affidavits fiXed herein* MthcM further orguwsnt, detezWlant respectfully submits that for each and XX of the reasons hereinbefore set forth* ite motion to quash and set aside the service of aumiiona and the sheriff’s - return of aervloe should he sustalaed^ �4 = , SH TIIE DI3TR10T StmiN COTOT FOR AND TO 0? THS OOTW) DISTRICT STATS8 OF HT01£D«J. ' '.I MIHTT, ,>:;;.>lOU3er>, » ■r «z\’ ■\' •"•■- 1 - TB • Ay DRAPSR <OOlfPjUlYi W. a Corporation, Defattdant < •- ^3 .' '’■'•te ft 1 T I t 9 The state of Wyoming, ) : ae Oonnty of Larenle* ) W. 0. Oerloton, bolng first duly «wom, upon hla oath deposes and says: that he la Deputy Soorotary of state for the state of Wyoming, and that as such deputy he has In his possession end under his control the offloe of said Seoretary of State, ineludlng those records pertaining to foreign eorporatlona* Affiant further states that he has made a careful exeailnation of the records of said office, and that Draper & Company, fne*, a Mass­ achusetts Corporation has never filed a certified copy of Its articles of Incorporation in said office, has never appointed any agent In the stete of .Vtyoralag- upon whom service of process may be made, or in any way complied with the lava of thia state relative to foreign corpora­ tions; and that on April 15th, 1921, Paul Draper was not the agent for service for said Draper & Oompcnyi Inc., in the state of Wyoming. And further affiant sayeth not. ■'^^'’ �IN THE DXSTHICT COURT OF THE TOOTED STATES WITHIN AND FOR THE DIOTRICT OF WYOMING ROT B. MINTY, ) j Plaintiff, - VB * J i ) s DRAPER & COMPANT, INC., a Corporation, Defendant. k THE STATE OF WYOMING OOUNTT of LARAMIE F F ) : ) t I D ATI T . SS. Paul Draper, being first duly sworn acoordlng to deposes and says that ho is president of Draper & Company, Ino«, a Massachusetts Corporation, the defendant in that certain action now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, wherein one Roy B. Minty is plaintiff; that he is familiar with the transactions and business affairs of said Draper & Company, Inc., and that he knows of his own knowledge that said corporation has not since February 11th, 1930, purchased any domestic grease wools either in the State of Wyoming or elsewhere throughout the United States; that on said February 11, 1930, said Draper & Company, Inc. entered into a contract with National Wool Marketing Corporation, by the terms of which It became exclu­ sive agent of the National Wool Marketing Corporation and ceased to do business on its own account in domestic grease wools. Affiant further states that said Draper & Company, Inc, • never had any office in the State of Wyoming or any local agent or officer in said state and that it did not have any office or any > local officer or agent in said state during the years 1930 and 1931; and that it did not transact or carry on any business of any kind In the State of Wyoming during the year 1931. ' i ' < �Affiaot further states that he was not on the 16th day of April, 1931, and never had been managing agent of said oorporation in the State of Wyoming, and that he never personally transi acted or carried on any business for and in behalf of said Draper & Company, Inc., in the State of Wyoming. Affiant further states that he has been engaged for many years in the wool business, and is thoroughly familiar with the marketing of wool; that because of his familiarity with all matters pertaining to the wool business, he was requested by the Wyoming Wool Cooperative Marketing Association, a Wyoming Corporation, to come to the State of Wyoming in the month of April, 1931, to meet with the wool growers of said state, to taUc over the wool situation with them and to explain to them the advantages of the co-operative marketing of their wool through the national Wool Marketing corpora­ tion, with which said Wyoming Wool Cooperative Marketing Association was and is affiliated; that affiant was in the City of Casper and the State of Wyoming on said 16th day of April, 1931, the day the summons and a copy of the petition in the case of Roy B. Minty vs. Draper & Company, Inc. was served upon him, at the request of said Wyomixig Wool Co-operative liarketing Association, for the above des­ cribed purposes, and for no other purpose whatsoever; that affiant was not in said city and state on said date on any business connected with Draper & Company, Inc., nor did he transact and carry on any business for said corporation while in the State of Wyoming on that date, or at any time subsequent to Kebruary 11th, 1950. Affiant further states that Roy B. Minty never represented Drapfur & Company, Inc. in the State of Wyoming, and that the placing of the name of Draper and Company, Inc., upon the door of the said ■5ttittty*s office in the Henning Hotel at Casper, Wyoming, was done wholly without the knowledge or consent of Draper and Company, Ino., or of any of its authorized officers or agents, and that all announce­ ments and advertisement by the said Minty to the effect that he was the local agent or representative of Draper & Company, Inc., in the State of Wyoming were also made and done by the said Minty without the knowledge or authorization of said Draper & Company, Ino. or of �any of its authorized officers or agents Affiant further states that his attention has been called to certain affidavits filed herein by the plaintiff to the effect that one H. H. Bennett and one W, J. Kissick had solicited cer­ tain residents of Wyoming during the year 1951 to sell their 1931 wool crop to Draper & company, and in this respect, this affiant alleges that neither the said H* H. Bennett nor the said ff. J. Kissick nor any other party had any power or authority to purchase wool or to solicit the purchase of wool in behalf of Draper & Company, Thc^, during the year X931 in the State of Wyoming or elsewhere in the United States; that Draper & company, Inc., during the year 1951 did not purchase any wool from any person in the state of Wyoming, and they did not authorize or permit any one with their consent to eollolt the purchase of wool in the state of Wyoming in their behalf, and that if any such solicitation was made by the said Bennett or by the said Kissick, it was made without the consent or authority of said Draper & Company, Inc., for the reason that since February 1930, said Draper & Company, Inc., has not purchased any grease wools, or had any agents or officers in the field for the purchase of such wools, but has acted solely as the exclusive agent of the National Wool Marketing Corporation in the sale of the wools purchased by said Corporation fr<»a the members of said affiliated state orga­ nizations, such as the Wyoming Wool Co-operative Marketing Association. And further affiant sayeth not* Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of January, 1932 Notary Public �W’^V ‘ >- - W m DISTRICT COTOT Qf THS WIJTBD wrmn: " ’!?■> •*? * ^'' * * * J \ '/.Av 'i » .K- t? aio m the district or ¥ioyxm V. *' 'f 6 ‘ * t , , *■ ROT B* MIBTT, '’ ' “• ’-■* , jy’ vf A \‘‘C^ is,. ,* Sr naiAtifr* 'I • TB • 1^. mPKR COUPAKt^ XRC«t a Corporattoa^ ta ... DefB&dont. rs# A r r X 0 A T X T ;r4 1 <> 5:* St VSSyiSlS ^ oowt or tmms > CharXea X» TattXB» twine flrat <ttXr aaorn aooorAlag ta IWa upon hla oath Oopoooa and aaro that ha roBldea at Salt Latoa Oltr la tha state of Utah and 1* the vaatarn repswaantatlve of Draper & Cwapany* Iao»» and aaa In the year 1930 and for sereraX yeara prior thereto the western repreeentatlve of Draper S& CosgwnT* Xao«a the defendant in the above entitled action. Affiant further atatea that In the early part of the -wMith of-fudiqmwy la the peer 1930« the exaet date being to thia affiant unknownt affiant net the above named plaintiff* Roy B« Mlsty^ and «ie G* T« Thomson at the Brown Falaoe Hotel In the city of Denver la the State of Coloradoj that the said G. T« Thm&eon was then «id for sosietlme bad been In the eaploy of the Rational Wool iMrlcetlng Corporation and was not then and never had been la the employ of Draper Company» Inc* Affiant further states that be teows of hla own haewledaa that said Draper & company* Ino., on or about the 11th day of 4.' �Tebxuaryi 1930, entered late a oontraot with the SatlosaX Wool ;|torketing Corporatlont by the tenoa of idiioh it agreed to beoorae, did beoo2Be« the exoXuelwe sales agent of said Corporatioa* and that, after said date, said Draper & Company, Ino. did not purchase any domestio grease wools in the State of Wyoming or elsewhere in the United States of Amsrioa, but has been engaged solely in the marketing and sale of wools consigned to said National Wool Meo^etiag Corporation by the Co-Oporatire Sterket* lag Association of wool growers throughout the United states* Affiant further states that, at the time he mot with the said Minty and the said Thomson at the said Brown Palace Hotel in the month of Tebruary, 1930, the Wyoming wool Co-operatlTo Marketing Association was just getting started and that Draper n Cm^ny, Xno* was trying to assist said Association in getting organised; that affiant talked this matter over with the said ; Hoy B. Minty and explained the entire situation to the said Hintyj that he explained to the said Minty that Draper & Company, Inc. had gone out of the wool purchasing business and he made it very plain to the said Minty that he was not employing Minty for Draper & Company, Inc*, but that Draper & Company, Inc* were willing to adwanoe and would advance to the said Minty 51,000.00 as a drawing account to cower his expenses while he was employed in soliciting wool growers of the State of Wyoming to become members of said Wyoming Wool Co-Operative Marketing Association and to market their wool crops through said Association and that no other or different agree­ ment was made with said Minty, by thia affiant, as agent and representative of Draper & Company, Inc., and that the above was and is the only agreement made by any one authorised to represent Draper & Company, Inc. with said Minty during the year 1930. Affiant further states that the said lUnty was told at eaid time by this affiant and it was distinctly understood by and between affiant and the said Minty that the said 51,000.00 so to be advanced to the said Minty as a drawing account was advanced �t»y'* OMtMar* Xm* fii* Mia la tabaXf «t «m1 co«0>em%iird ll&tlEotlng AsMeiatioa axid that said aoney was to he repaid to said Draper & Oempa&yt hy eald r?yosiiiig wool OgwOperatlre liarkatlng Meoelatloa* and amm:it kneve of hie ova knowledge that said laoaoy ao adwaaeed to said Minty hy said Pcapar & Conpeny* Xnd. was a^ervards repaid to said Draper & Oeapany* Xne* by said iryomlns Wol Go«Op«ratlye iMrkatlne Asao* olatiott* And further affiant sayeth not* Suhsorll^d and sworn to hefora as thia IDth day of January* 1932* �'5*.“ '-X,'’ -'-f IK to: oiotrict court or tub toxtso otatbs w» ■• . A: AKD m m oxwRXcsT or wroJOTa '"j. .'■J' * \ BOTB. MIKTY, r JPlMAtiff* A ’i *• * i p 1 rW-.v'W.^' s?-' 'i-'- ! • - > *<5 7’A '■ • ys «• •'. ' 9 .'< • ftf ’ k 4 ? .r«’^^■'• .-3. ••j. ••> '.•'. s ' ’'’ V**5 i •, • itW*; r ’ mxn<n? a oc^k^ a CorporatlMt '*5: ’V ^‘ ‘ C \* Dqfondant. .7?. / - 7' <■ >' / v<.^^ r * i' O^-' A * ' * > r t n A r X T -As ' f -u h' WB STATS or OTimWCI GOWT OS* xm?o ’ , vf ■^. ^-w-." ' - -;k f ■ > ' . * i ‘ :SS. Charles n« Gilson* he tng first duly sworn aeeordl&g to law, U3p<m his oath aeposes ana aays that he Msldos at gWlnXey, OenweiWQ <^nty» ^mlng, and Is the 3eo2*etary->Tx*easurer of the iryoniBg ttooI co^Opentlwe Marketing Assooletlon, a oorporatleat <nrgasUi^A and oxistlhe^ tinder the laws of the state of wspaolag and <m@ased la the aarl^tln^ of wool for the wool growers of Wyoming who are or nay ho6o:«» numbers of said Assoelatlon* That he knows of his own knowledge that Draper Coo- >aayt Xnoa, the defmidast In the above entitled action, ms not yhgaeed In any business In the State of Wyoalag during the year W5a and that It had no property, or office* or plsos of buslneim in said State during said year and did not purohaae any wool la Mid state during said year* Affiant farther states that his attention has been oallM to an affidavit filed herein to the effect that one Jff. H* Bennett purchased on automobile In the City of Casper In the year 1931 and paid for the Sane by a draft upon Wpar A Company, Xno«, �• .X.' • ‘ the d«fen4aat hez<Qln} that affiant knowa of hla own knovladga that aaia oar was ths personal pxoparty of said K. n. Bennett and saa reglBtersd la his naoe la the offlee of the Saeretarjr of state for the state of Wyotalng and that the license for said oar eas Issued to said H» n. Beaastt. Afflaat further states that ha la well aegualated with H, R« Benaettt Joe Rlehards, 71b Hannon, a. T. nxMaea ot Boston, Uassaohusetta, !tt Klssleh ot Olllette, ^TyoBlng, aad Hoy R. UMte and Don A. Blrrsll of Salt Take city, Utah, end that he ■,.,-^.lBiew of his own knowledge that none of said persons were engaeed dke purchase of wool for Draper & Coipany, lao. In the State of >{i.'-I -'/Ryoiilne In the year 1931} < that raid parsons and eaoh and otory of ^WB during the year 1931 solicited certain wool growers of the Si»te of wyoBlng to heooira samihers of the S^naalae Sool co-Operatlro Marketing ^soolatlon and to aarket their wool through said Asso­ ciation, and| noting tor otA in behalf of said uyoalng wool Co- Operative Marketing Association, did eratraet to purehaae and did purahase for raid Association oertaln oropa of wool In the state of ryoBlng In the year 1931, dfflc^ak further states that said Wydfflla^ ^1 Co-Operative AssooletlMi is assoeiated with the national rfool Marketing OmpOratlra aad is a stockholder and larahor ot said corporation raieh has Its headquarters at Boston In the state of TMsraebusette) thdt It has a contract with said Corporation by the terras of which It Markets all wool purohnsotl by It throupji said National Wool Mar­ keting Corporation and pays said National Wool TSarketlng Corporation the sura of one and three-fourths (1-2) Cents per pound for such ser­ vice in the marketing of said woolj that, la addition to the mo-v-t- Ing of Bald wool under the terras of said agreeraent, raid National Wool Maiketing Corporation agreed to furnish aad did furnish to the Wpoaing Wool Oo-Oporatlvo Marketing Association experts In wool to appraise the wool crops purchased by said Association, and that In the year 1931, In aoeordance with said agreenrat, said Itetional wool �dorporatloa fUteSatoA to the wycaaine ’^ooX Co-Operatlvo llarMtt&g Assoolatl^^ the aaia B» H* Bennett, Joe niehox^, Jia llua^ T« Thoaeon, w« J. Kleelek, Hoy Isoore ana Bcm A« liirpell, as sueh exports to appraise said wool crops; that tM duties of said expez*ts were to visit each and every xaonber of said Assoolatlon to app:imlse the value of the wool crop of said rams* her as a basis of advance payments to he made to said menher* Affiant further states that, under the terms of the ooatract hetwoea the t/yomias ’^®oX Co-Operative iMrlEetlne Aasooiatlon and said mtionol wool mrhetlng Corporation, said KatlonaX wool liar^tlng Corporation agreed to adimnoe to the msmhers &t the Mid Timing Assoolatlon, prior to the sale of their wool, a cer­ tain percent of the value of said wool crop, and that these experts ahei^ mentlimed detemlned Mt only the value of sold wool crops hut the percentage of said value which should he advanced to each member of said assoeiatloai that, fbr this purpose, each of the above naatd piurtleB were appointed Assistant Seorotarles of sold Wyoming weoX Go-Opcratlve Mairketlng Association and were authorised to draw drafts, and did draw drafts, iwon said l^tlonal Wool iSarMt* lag Corporation la favor of said grower member for the amount to he advanced to said tEBmber upon his wool crop and said drafts were paid by said national Wool yarheting corporation and ciinrged by it to the aoMunt of the WyoMng Wool Co-Operative Wrketlng Association, who In turn charged the same to the individual account of the n»cfl>or the Assoolatlon otmlng said wool crop. Affiant furUier statos that during the year 1931, as Seoretary*"Treasurer of said Wyoming Wool Co-Operative Marketing Association, he worked with each and all of the above named expertsg that It was his duty to notify them when and where to go to qppraise wool crops, and that he knows of his own knowledge that each and every of tlui above statezwents are true. 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this IJth day of January, A< D. 1932. Notary Puhlloy -------- �IS THB OTITBD STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TBE DISTRICT OP WIOKIHO « ROY B. MISTY, « e ■ 3 Plaintiff, } ) V8. DRAPER & COMPANY, ISC., a Corporation, Defendant* Civil So. 2107 Deposition of sundry witnesses taken before me,Madge R. mxlte, a Hotery Publie within and for the County of Natrona, State of Wyoming, on the 12th day of January, 1932, between the hours of 9 o’olook A.M. and 5 o’clock P.M., at 309*11 Consolidated Royalty Building, Casper, Wyoming, pursuant to agreement, to be read in evidence In behalf of plaintiff, in an action ponding in the United States District Court? for the District of VS^oming, in which Roy B. Minty Is plaintiff, and Draper & Company, In©., a Corporation, is defendant. John P. Nolan, of lawful age, being by me first duly examined, cautioned, and solemnly sworn as hereinafter certified deposeth and s aye th as follows, viz: Q. State your naise* A. John P. Nolan. Q« What is your occupation. At Automobile dealer. Qt With what automobile company are you associated? A, Solan Chevrolet Company, Casper. Q» What, if any, position do you hold with the Nolan Chevrolet Co^any? At Secretary, Treasurer, and General Manager* Q. Were you such Secretary, Treasurer and General Manager during the year 1931? A. I was. Q. During the year 1931 did you know one H. H. Bennett? A. I did. �Q. Did you have any buelneea dealings vlth Mr. BennettT A« Tes, I did. Q* Will yon state what they were? A. Oh the 17th day of April, 1951 Hr. Bennett purOhSsed a Chevrolet automobile from me. • *. * ‘ Q. Bov was the oar paid for, Mr. Molan? A. The car wae paid for with, or by, a draft on Draper & Company. Q« That*a at Boston, BaasachusettsT A. I don't remember whether "Boston, ttaseaohusetta" appeared on the draft or not • Q. Was the draft paid? A. Yes. �Arthur Faaailaro, of lawfixl ago, being by me first duly examined, cautioned, end solemnly svom &s hereinafter eertlfled, depose th and sayeth ae follows, vlsi Q. Will you state your nsme? A» Arthur Fasmlaro. Q. Tour occupation? A. Clerk. Q. By tAiom are you en^loyed? A. Henning Hotel. Q. Were you clerk In the employ of the Henning Hotel during ths year 1931? A. Tes, sir. Q. Are you acquainted with one H, H. Bennett? A« Tea, sir. Q, Were you aoqxialnted with him during the year 1931? A. Tes, sir. Q. You may state. If you know. If Rr. Bennett stayed at the Hennlztg Hotel during the year 1931. A* Tee, air. Q« Do you know for how long a period of time? A. I can’t say for sure. Q. Approximately? A. Between two and three months. Q. During what months of 1931 would that be? A. I know he was there In June, but I can’t say Just how long he was there. It might not have been two months. Q. During the time that Mr. Bennett stayed at the Henning Hotel In Casper how did he pay his hotel bill? A. well, he paid hie bill la cash, but he Gashed some drafts. Q. Have you any record of any drafts he was at the Henning Hotel? A« Tea, sir. Q, What record do you have? A. On, our date, of June 8, 1931 there was draft drawn by H. R. Bennett, payable to the Hotel, on Draper & Company, Boston, for $200,00• Mr. Bennett cashed while �Q. a« Q. Do you have any pooord of any other draft? There waa one on, our date, of June 19th, H« B« Bennett payable to the Hotel, on Draper & Company, Boston, for 1800.00. Do you have any other record? There was one on our date of June 50, 1951, H. H. Bennett payable to the Hotel drawn on Draper A Boston, for #160.00. A. Q. How, you Bay that this money was need to pay hie hotel bill with? A. How that I oan't say for s^ire » can’t say that It was used for the Hotel - might have got cash for it and not have paid the hotel. �STA'fE OF V.YOMHO, ) t SB. COWn OF MATROKA. ) I, MadgB R. VShlte, Rotary Public in and for said oounty and atata, do hereby oartlfy that John P. Rolan Arthur Fawilare «• • severally duly aworn to testify to the truths the <iole truth end nothing hut the truth* end thet the depositions, by them respeetlvely suhsorlbed es ehOTS set forth, were redueed to writing by myself, end were respeotlvely suhsorlbed by Uxe seld witnesses In my presence, end were teken at the time and place agreed upon} thet I am not counsel, attorney or relative of either party, or otherwise interested in the event of thia suit} end said depositions were commenced at the time specified. In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand end seel this 12th day of January, 1932a My commission expires July 28, 1933. ?■ �STATE OF wrcarato, > ■ I aa. ' y j/ cowry OP MATRONA. ) X> Madge K, White* a Notary Public In and for said county and state, do hereby certify that John P. Nolan Arthur Famularo » first severally duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that the depositions, by them respectively subscribed as above sot forth, were reduced to writing by nyself, and wex*e respectively subscribed by the said witnesses In wy presence, and were taken at the tine and place agreed upon) that X an not counsel, attorney or relative of either party, or otherwise Interested In the event of this suit} and said depositions were eoBBieneed at the tlxse specified. Xn Testimony whereof X have hereunto set my hand and seal this 12th day of January, 1932. Ky commission expires July 25, 1955. �That later I Introduced Mr. Scherck to Mr. Draper and Mr. Scherck, in discussing the matter with Mr. Draper, explained that, according to figures, there was a great discrepancy in the weights as submitted from his office with reference to the amount of wool Draper and Company were holding, which belonged to Scherck. Mr. Draper said; ”1 am very sorry that this has occurred and am not in position to discuss it in detail now, but If you will write a letter and address it to me in Boston, I will take the matter up on my return to the office and render you statement to date." Immediately after his conversation with Mr. Scherck, Mr.Draper said he was leaving for Douglas and expected to arrive in Denver that afternoon. �That on or about April 15th» 1951 Thomas Cooper, President of the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association, cams into my office in the Henning Hotel, where he remained over an hour, during which time we discussed in a general way, woolgrowers and woolgi‘owers organizations. He Informed me that Mr. Paul Draper, President of the Draper and Company, inc., wool merchants of Boston, Massachusetts, and sales agents for all wools consigned to the various cooperative organizations under Government control, was expected to arrive Casper that afternoon, and that he. Cooper, was making every effort to get as many woolgrowers together as possible for a meeting that night at the Henning Hotel a»d Mr. Draper was making a tour of the state for the purpose of explaining cooperative marketing to the growers and to induce them to consign their wool to the Wyoming Cooperative Marketing Association, for v'hich Draper and Company, Inc., as above stated, were selling agents. That Mr. Draper did arrive as expected, and did hold meeting in the Henning Hotel that night as planned, at which meeting certain woolgrowers and bankers were present. Up to the time of Mr. Draper’s arrival in Casper, he had visited several towns on the U.P., Lander, Worland and Thermopolis. The day following his arrival in Casper, he drove to Buffalo where he held another meeting, returning to Casper late in the after­ noon of the same day. The following morning, Mr. Frank Scherck, local wool grower, came to my office asking if I had seen or if I knew Mr. Draper; that he was anxious to meet him and if possible straighten out a tangle in weights and figures of a clip of wool Mr. Scherck had shipped the previous year, and of which Draper and Company, Inc., were In possession. ��0 IB THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR m DISTRICT OF TCOMIBC • • ROT B. WIHTr, Flftlatlff, Auto & coa?A>n^ a Gopporatioa* *, . V"..7 Defendant. ) Civil Ho. 2X07 1 ‘. STATS GF WXOBIHQ, } t at. COOTTT OF BATm>BA. ) AFFIDAVIT B« IU.BtF, Qt lawful age. and being first dulx awom. upon oath depoaea and aaya: That he 18 the plaintiff xuomd In the above and foregoing entitled eauae, and, in addition to the oral teatlm<»^ heretofore Introduoed by hl», makes and files this, his affidavit} That he Is veil aoqualnted with one Thomas Cooper, and has been for some years last past} that during the year 1931 said Thomas Cooper was President of the Wyoming Woolgrowers* Association; That, on or about the 15th day of April, 1951, your affiant was advised by said Thomas Cooper that Paul Draper, President of Draper & Company, Inc., wool merchants of Boston, Massachusetts, expected to arrive In G.sper that afternoon for the purpose of Influencing wool growers In aborning to market their wool tiu'ough the various cooperative marketing associations. Including the Hatlonal Wool Cooperative Martcat Ing Asaoeiatlon, for which said l>aper Ic CcnapaxQT were exclusive sales agents; That said Draper did arrive In Gasper on or about said 15th day of April, 1931, and held a meeting that night at the Henning Hotel in Casper with various wool growers In Hatrona County; That, prior to hla arrival In Casper, the said Draper had �visited several teens along the TTnloa Pselflo Hsllresd, had visited in Xander, Worland, and Themopolla, all being town In Wyoming* that the day folloelag his arrival In Casper the eaid Draper drove to Buffalo, Wyoming, ehere ho held a similar rneetlng, returning to Casper late th® same aftemoon* That the purpose of the visit to Wyoming of th© said Paul Draper was to Influonoe wool growers In l^cmslng to market their aool through a cooperative plan, and thus stimulate the huslness of said Draper & Company; That, while in Casper, the said Paul Draper conversed with Frank Soherok, a loeal woolgrower, ooneemlng a diserepaney in certain weights of wool theretofore shipped hy the said Scherek and th«ci being handled hy Draper a Co&q;>any, and said Seherck was advised hy the said Paul Draper to write the said Draper oonoemlng the matter fully, at his offloe in Boston, so that upon his return to Boston he would have aeoess to the records of the company concerning this shi^ent of wool. r-i 7 < Ti-Tt- ■■■-.■ Suhsorlhed and swem to hefore me this -—mrt I-;- - -.-ni - . day of iSranuax^, 19S8» tel:ary jPuS^^ i eemmission expires ^hly 8S, 1955. : : ' �IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF V/YOMING ■» ROY B. MNTY, Plaintiff, vs. DRAPER &COMPANY, INC., a Corporation, Defendant. STATE OF VJYOMING, COUNTY OF NATRONA. * * ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) !SS. ) Civil No. 2107 affidavit THOMAS COOPER, of lawful age and being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: That he is a citizen and resident of Natrona County, Wyo­ ming, and has been for several years last past; That he Is at present President of the Wyoming Woolgrowers’ Association; That during the years 1930 and 1931 he was acquainted with one H. H. Bennett, reputed to be a representative of Draper & Company, of Boston, Massachusetts; That during said year 1931 he did not sell his wool clip, but consigned the same to the Wyoming Wool Cooperative Marketing Association; that subsequent to said consignment the said H, H. Bennett tested and graded the wool belonging to your affiant, after which the said H. H. Bennett delivered to your affiant a draft cover­ ing advance payment for his wool so consigned; Your affiant does not know how long the said H. H. Bennett was in Wyoming during the wool buying season of 1931, but does know that he contacted woolgrowers other than your affiant and tested and graded the wool of growers other than yoxxr affiant. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to before me this My commission expires July 25, 1933. day of January, 1932. Notary Public. �IM THE UMITED STATES DISTRICT COTOT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HYOMIMG « * « ROy 0. KMTt, Plaintiff, V8. DRAPER & COUPAMT, IMC., a Corporation, Defendant. ) Clwll >O. 8107 STATE OP WOMIHQ, ) } ea. COOTTT OP MATROMA. ) A??IS 2IS THOMAS COOPim, of lawful age end being flrat duly eworn, OB oath depoaea and aayat That he la a cltlaen aad realdent of Katrona County, Myo- Bing, and haa been for aeveral years last past} That he ie at preaent Preeldent of the Wyoalng Woolgrowere* Aaaoolatlon) That during the years 19SO and 19S1 he wee acquainted with one H« H. Bennett, reputed to be a representative of Draper A Company, of Boston, Massachusetts| That during said year 1©31 he did not sell his wool clip, hut consigned the same to the Wyoming Wool Cooperative Marketing Association; that subsequent to said consignment the said H. H- Bennett tested and graded the wool belonging to your affiant, after which the said H. H. Bennett delivered to your affiant a draft cover­ ing advance payment for his wool so consigned; Your affiant does not know how long the said H* H. Bennett was In Wyoming during the wool buying season of 1631, but does know that he contacted woolgrowers other than your affiant and tested and graded the wool of growers other than your affiant. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to before me this My commission expires July 26, 1935. __ day of January, 1838. Rotary Public. �XV THS UVITED STATES DISTRICT COW FOR Tas DISTRICT OF W70VXV0 » « « ROY Q. VXVTY, Plaintiff, DRAPSH & COMPAHY, XVC., a Corporation^ Z>of endant* STATS OF VYOMXSa, } s •«. COnVTT OF VATROVA. ) Olrll Vo* 0107 AFFIDAVIT WM >«•« «IIM MB* ••• TBOMAS COOPSR, et lawful age and being flrat duly awom* on oath depeaea and aaxay That he la a eltlaen and realdent of Satrona County, alx^;, and haa been for several years last paat| That he la at present President of the m^oailag Voolgrowera* Association) That during the years 1930 and 1931 he vas acquainted with one H« H. Beimett, reputed to be a representative of Draper & CoR^any, of Bostem, Vassaehuaetts) That during said year 1031 he did not sell hl a wool clip, but oonalgned the same to the Wyoming Wool Cooperative Xarketlng Assoelatloni that subsequent to said eonalgnment the said H« H. Bennett tested and graded the wool belonging to your affiant, after which the said H. H* Bennett delivered to your affiant a draft cover­ ing advance payment for his wool so eonslgned) Your affiant does not know ho* long the said B* H. Bennett was In Wyoming during the wool buying season of 1931, but does know that he contacted woolgrovers other than your affiant and tested and graded the wool of growers other than your affiant. Further affiant sayeth not. Subserlbed and sworn to before ise this My coBBnlssloa expires July 26, 1056. . day of January, 1982. Votary Public. �in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OP THE STATE OP WYOMING R. B. MINTT, VS ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) ) ) DRAPER AND COMPANY, Ino., a corporation ) ) ) Defendant ) STATE OF WYOMING County of Natrona CIVIL CASE #2107 AFFIDAVIT ) I SB ) Pearl B. Burna, of lawful age and being first duly sworn, on oath depoeee and aays: That she la a Public Stenographer, and was auoh Public Stenographer during the years 1930 and 1931, with her office and place of business located In the Henning Hotel In the city of Casper, Natrona County, Wyoming. That during the years 1950 and 1931, she was acquainted with one He H. Bennett; that during said years 1930 and 1931, at the request of said H. H. Bennett, she performed services for him In her capacity as Public Stenographer, and on numerous occasions, at his request and at his dictation, wrote letters to Draper and Com­ pany, Inc,, Wool Merchants of Boston, Massachusetts, concerning ac­ tivities of the said H. H. Bennett for Draper and Company, Inc., in Wyoming. That such communications concerned Inspection and appraisals of wool, soliciting of wool, advice as to woolgrowers already contacted and to be contacted and asking for Instructions as to how to proceed in certain instances, etc.. When such letters wel^ transcribed by her, they were delivered by her, personally, to Mr. Bennett, for mailing. me this 22nd day of January, A.D. 1934. �II TBS UUTKD STATES DXSTHICT COURT FOR THS DISTRICT OF WrOMW ♦ • * sot S« KIBTr> Plaintiff, vs. IffiAPER as COMPAIX, IRC., a Corporation, ) } Dtfandaat. ) STATS OP WYOMING, cotnmr of batroba. ) : ) Civil No. 2107 A F F I £ A V 1 £ Salary Mahonay, of lawful ago, and being first duly sworn, ox^ath dope BO a and sayst That ho Is a eitlson and resident of the City of Casper, Natrona County, Wytnalng, and has been for som tins last past) That, during th© year 1931, ho was ottployod by The Boa Agonoy, Ine., a li^oalng corporation, as an agent solloltlng the sale of insurance of various kindsj That he is acquainted with one H. H. Bonnett, and was during the year 1951j That, as such agent for said The Bon Company, Ino., ho sold to said H. H. Bonnett a policy of Insurance covering public liability, property dazsage, fire and theft upon one certain Chevrolet Coach, and that the presdum for said Insuranoe was paid for by said H« H. Bennett by a draft drawn, to the best of his knowledge and rooolloctlon, upon Driqper Bs Coaq^ax^*, of Boston, Massachusetts. Further deponent sayeth not. (Signed) BARRY MAHONEY Subscribed and sworn to before »e this Sth day of January, 199S. My ownmlsslon «xplr.« Madge R. JMXy 86, 1953. (SEAL) Sot.i7 biblie. �I» THE UHITKn STATES DlSTSffGt DISTRICT GF WTOKTSG FOK ■» # » ) W S* »ITOf, PlalBtlff, v«. BRAPSR at OGISFASt, XITO., a GarporatlcMft, ) Dafendant* } sm« OF irtoiiw, ) r«i* . . V"• ■*'«'/. 'V' .■> .*■.■ * Clvli 80e 81€^ AF£i£A VI £ COOTW OF SATROSA. ) Barry Sahoney, &t iK^ial and lialng flrot duly arorn, ox|bath deposes and says: That he Is a eitlsen and resident of the Olty of 0ai8p«f, jBtrona Gonaty, wymdag* and has bee» for oom time last pasti That, during the year 1931, he was araplcyed by Ihe Son Agency, Ina*, a Wyoming corporation, as an agent soliciting the sale of Insaranoe of various feladsj %at he la acquainted with one S» H, Bennett, and was during the year IPSlf That, as such agent for said The Son Company, lao-, he sold to said H. H« Bennett a policy of Inimranoe covering public liability, property damage, fire and theft np<m one certain Chevrolet Coach, and that the premium for said Insurance was paid for by said H. H. Bennett by a draft drawn, to the best of hl a knowledge and reoolleotlcm, up<m Draper & Oompaay> Boston, Massachusetts. Further deponent sayeth not* (Signed) BARRY MAHQHEY Subserlbed and sworn te before me this Sth day of Fanuai^, My oomwlsslon expires jily 2S, IWSS. (SEAL) ioiary pSafo. �tH THS DISTRICT COURT EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WB, Mim, ) * ▼8 * ) mPER & COMTAHT, IHG», j a Corporation, . . | J ' Dafoad^t..) . owMsajroR movAX " . < ■ J;.-<^3 .‘^•Z THIS anttor eoaing oa reguleriy tiaard ajioft tha petition and bond of the defendant heroin for an order transferring this oauee to the United States District Court for the District of ■ <'* Wyoming:, and It appearing to the Court tlwit the defendant has filed ’ its petition for such removal in due form of las and within the time provided by statute, and that the defendant has also filed his bond duly conditioned, with good and sufficient sureties, as pro­ vided by law, and that defendant has given plaintiff due and legal notice thereof; and It appearing to the Court Wat this Is a pro* per cause for removal to said Dlstriot Court of We United states; MOW, THSIWOB?, said petition and bond are hereby accepted and, XT IS roteT GRDEW AHD ADJUDcm> that this o«ise be, and it hereby Is, removed to the United States District Court for the Dis­ trict of Wyoming pursuant to the statutes of the United States In such case made and provided, and that all further proceedings in this Court be stayed, and that the Clerk of this Court, be, and he hereby > V Is, directed to make up a transcript of the record In said cause for tranaialsslon to said United States District Court forthwith* Done in open court this j day of May, 1931. �THS STATE 0» WeMBIO ) J3S. COUSITY 0? ) IN THS DISTRICT COURT KOHTS lUDICIAI DISTRICT : aoTB.MirrT, : . . Plaintiffi * vs * DHAP3R a CCMFAMT, XNC., a Corporation, X>efe&dant« .?9TXTX<» m oaos^ » Hwrics if • • , ’ «i , • • • « * • r• . rok^ax.. '' . I?• * •’*4 * • • r* • ,■ ■. ', •-• • • Li.-- • ■K '.*•'■ ; To the above naned plaintiff* Boy B« X&htyf and to Durbaa a BaoheXlert his attorneys of record: You and each of you will pXeaae take notice that on Satur­ day, the 9th day of May« A« D. 1931, at the hour of 10 o’clock a. M« of said day* the above naaed defendant, Draper a Company, Xno«, a Gorporatlon, vlll file In the above named court Its petition and bond as required by law for the removal of said cause from the above entitled court to the united states District Court for the District of Wyoming, and will at the sama time, or as soon thereafter as coun­ sel can be heard, move the court for an order removing said cause to the District Court of the United States for the District of 'Wyoming, In accordance with the petition and bond of defendant, copies of which are hereto attached. Dated this day May, A. D. IWl* > XttornB^ for Defeadan t. . ..■lb hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the above notice, also of a copy of the petition and bond for removal this ^\^. day ot Jtoy, IWI. i Attorneysr?orPlain tiff �THS 3TAT2 07 WTOMISO) :sa, GOOTTr 07 lUTWA ' 1 Ur ras DISTRICT COURT RXtWS JUDICIAL MSTRICT TOT B> MUPTT, Plaintiff. ■ * ▼«' * ■ DIUP2R & COKPAKY. IHC., a Ooxporatlon. r DefaMant.) PSTITIOR 70R R3TOVAL TO THS 7SDSRAL COURT. the Honorabla. the Diatrlot Court of the Sighth Judicial Dietriot, sitting vlthln and for the County of Natrona, in the State df wyottlngi The petition of Draper & Company. Ino*. t3xe above nazaed de* fondant, appearing herein speoially and for the purpose of thia re* jeooral alone. rei^eotfuUy repreaenta: 1. That the above entitled aotlon has been brought in thia Court and la ao« pending heroin; and that the tlras within which defen* dent la required to answer or otherwise plead has not yet expired. 2. That said aotlon la of a civil nature; that plaintiff In his petition alleges that on February 4. 1930, he entered Into a contract with defend ant, by the terns of whloh defendant mployed him to pur* ohase wool for defendant In the State of ^yonlng. and that plaintiff was to receive one-fourth oent per pound for all wool so purchased; that duzlng the 1930 season, he purchased 4,698.673 pounds of wool, and also paid out in filing fees the «im of $4&0.C0} and that defen* dant had paid plaintiff only $6.saQ.22, leaving a balanoe due plain* tlff under the tenss and conditions of said oontract in the sum of $8.&93.4d. for which, together with Interest thereon, plaintiff asks Judgment against defendant* *1* f �3» That tha valoa of the matter la oontioveray between plaintiff and defendant In said action la xaore than three thousand dollars, 4* states; That this suit la wholly between citizens of different that at the tlxEie when said suit Instituted> and at the present time* the plaintiff was and Is a eltlaen and resident of -tihe State of Wyoming; and that the defendant* your petitioner* was and Is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Uassachusetta* having Its prlnolpal office and plaoe of business In the City of Boston in said state* and was and Is a resident and eltizen of said State of Kassaohueetts. 5. That your petitioner presents herewith a good and suffiolent bond* as provided by the statutes In such oases* condl* tloned that It will enter In the Dlstrlot Court of the United States for the District of Jyoralng, within thirty days frcQ the date of the filing of this petition* a certified copy of the reeord In this suit* and that it will pay all coats which may be awarded by the said Die­ triot Court* In case the said court shall hold that this suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto* WHEH3F0RK, your petitioner respsetfully prays that this Court proceed no further herein* exoept to make an order accepting the bond presented herewith and dlreotlng that a transcript of the reeord herein be made for filing In the United states District Court aforesaid* Xfto'iSey 'for Braper 4 Gtwg^y * Itnc TBS STATS car W COWTT oy LARAJCS :5S. ) lU A* Kline* being first duly sworn* on oath says that he Is attorney for Draper & CoaQ;>any* Inc** who makes the above and fore* going petition for removal; that he has read said petition and verily believes that the statements therein contained are true; : that he makes this verification for and In behalf of said petitioner for the reason that said petitioner Is a foreign corporation and Is not a reel* �subQorlbed and awora to before m thl* , day of �m STOT 0? WTOtfW) h iSSe' cotsm-or si’wm f I» TBS DXSTHIOT oom " SIOSTH JDDICK larsi^icT ROT B KBrar PlaintiffJ ▼8 COKPABT, IMG., a Ooi^osratiM, ^WSR '. * « Defendant. T-- •a ’ <> ;^ra OR RsiKnrAX. ■i' L^'WOS AlX JC^‘St-RISSB PH3SOTS^, That we. Draper & CoBQjany Iqo a eorporatioa, and the JSassaohusetto Bonding * Insurance Coa- paay. & oorporation duly organised and existing under the laws of the State of Kassachuaetts, and being duly authorized to transact and carry on business as a surety company in the State of Syomlng, are held and firmly bound to Boy B. Kinty, the plaintiff in the aboTe entitled cause, his successors and assigns, in the sum of yive Hun­ dred (1500.00) Dollars, lawful money of the •Onltod states of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to ba made, wo and each of as bind ourselves, our suceessors and assigns. Jointly and severally by these presents. SaShSAS, the said Draper S; Company, Ino., intends to file in the District Court of Natrona County, Wyoming, its petition for the removal of a certain cause therein pending, wherein Hoy B. Minty is plaintiff, sad Draper & Company, Ino., a corporation, is defen­ dant, to the District Court of the Halted Statee » for the Blstrlot of ‘ Wyoming for fta*ther proceedings oh grounds in said petltKm «t forth and asking for a stay of all further prooeedinge In said District Court of Ratroaa Couoty, wyosiogj �IBSHEFCHB, the conditions of this obligation are such that if eaid petitioner, Draper ac Coi^any, Ino., shall enter in said District Court of the United states for the District of Vyomlag, within thirty days from the date of filing said petition* a certi­ fied copy of the record in said suit, and shall pay, or cause to be paid all costs that stay be awarded therein by said District Court of the United States, if said Court shall hold that said suit was wrongfully or improperly rexaoved thereto, tl^n this obligation shall be woid; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. Dated this day of May, JL. D, 1031. �IK THE UNITED STATES DXSTRIOT COW THE DISTRICT OP wyoMim ROY B. KIHTT, | draper > COMPAKT, IHC., ) i Defendant* } MOT X C B TO Ws ABOVE BAMED AND TO Hi A. KUKE, ITS ATT(Wsy OT and ea<^ of you will ^leaee taXe notice that the above named plaintiff will eall tg? for hearing and determination your 8O-oalled motion and apeolal aj^earen^ filed herein before ’O” !'■ ■■ '- -■ W^taesdi^^ the 10th day /. the/.all^ln^' i<Ch»y»nne>-^^^ if Ifl^i; at 10 b^olifel? in the forenoon, at >dil<^ time and place you »y he prc^eent If you 80 ^alre< i Ati;orne;i^\ ?or YiSnHff Reoelpt of the above and fore golnc Sotlee la hereby aokno^dedged thia 1931, •L-J/ Attorney for liefendant - % <7* ■s* '' "'■O' -v 'r- * > '..'••ft' ■'» > '^' A ■*’•■)> K * * • # * « �i« ttt msTracT ccayRT or "ifiTHiii kjtri ro« ths nams statks th€ msmct ca^ wroMimJ ••**•«••»•«••« KOT 3. UTKTT, Plaintiff^ -va- < COMPAWT, T»C,, D»f«odaat» ' '•? BP8CTAL APmnAKC< AM COTXOB TO QUA^J Com* bo« We nasetf defesdast^ Oraper and Coapany, Tnc., and appearji^ epeclsily Tor Wa purpose of objecting to We jurisdiction of tMe eowrt ©eer We persoe Qt Wls defendant, and for no other purpose n&atsoerer, Movee We Court for on order quashli^ and eettlng aside the service of suMons and the saerlff*e return of eervloe «ada la the above entitled ustter, and as grounds of said taction, defendant respectfully shove to the Court aa folloes; 1, That the defendant Is a foreign corporation, duly organist and eilsting under and by virtue of the laee of the State of Sasssohueetts, with Ite head^i^artere and prlnclj^l place of bus­ iness In We City of Boston In said state. That the defendant on We 13W day of Aprils A« D, 1931, we day wen said purported ecrrlce of mMwons was attempted to be mde utx>n Wls defendant, vas net traneaotlng any business of any kind In the State of ^yo»ln^ and did not have any agent, office, or place of business In said etJ^te, nor had defendant transacted any business, or had any agent, office, or pl^e of business In the state of Wyoming, for a long time prior to said April Idth, 1931. 3. That Feul Prsper, We person upwi Worn We protended service of saaBnone »a« »ada^ eas not on said April IS, 3531, and �never had been an agent oT the defendant In the State of Wyoaingj that on said date the said Paul Draper was not the managing agent of said defendant In the State of Wyoming; and that he was in the State of Wyoming and In the City of Casper merely as a visitor and attendant at a meeting of the Wyoming Wool Growers Asaocletlon and not as an agent or officer of defendant corporation, or on any bue- iness connected with defendant corporation. 4. That eaoh and all of these matters are more fully shown by the flies of this case, and fey the affidavits of Paul Draper, Joseph P. Draper and Paul W. Brown annexed hereto and made a part of this motion. �Ttia State of nontnnu ) Cottsty of ) Paul DT*o«r, ^etag fUxst tely awora aowrdlng to law, O^K)se« and eaya that ha la aaaatdaat of nf*»oar A Coapany, Inc., a Maaaaohuaatta Corporatlon, idia dafandaot In ttoat oaxtsln action now ponding In the United Statea matriot Court for tha Diatrlct of ayoiBiftgi i^ardln ono ^oy 8. Minty Is plaintiff} that ho Is faalllar with ^a tranaaotlona aial taialnoso affairs of said Dtapor £ GoBpany, Xnc., and that ha knows of hl a own knowledge that said corporation has not olaeo fohruftry 11th, 1S30, puroheesd any doBoa110 gr^o wools either la «io StnU of wyoaing or alse^iiaro throtudiout United ^^taa| that os said Fehruary 11, 1930, said Draper & Odbpat^, Inc. entered Into a contract with Rational Sool Marketing Corporation, hy the tome of which it booaae exolusivo agent of Rational itool birkotlhg Corporation and ceased to do business on Its own aooount in doseetlo grease wools. Affiant further states that said Draper A Conpaay, Inc. newer had any office in the state of Rowing or any local agent or officer In said state and that It did not have any office or any local officer or agent In said state during the years 1930 and 1931} Affiant further states that he was not on the 13th day of April, 1931, and newer had been managing agent of said corporation «•**< peraoaally trsns^-ctsd In the state of or carried on any huslness tot and In behalf of said Draper A Coapan]^ Inc., In the State of Wyoalng. Affiant further states that he has heea engaged for naay years in the wool business, and Is thoro'ih^hly feMllar with the aarketli^ of wool} that because of his faalllarlty with all natters pertaining to the wool business, he was requested by the wyonlng Dpoperotlwe Marketing Association, a doming Oorporatlon, to �OOM to the state of ifyoming In the Month of April, 1931, to oeet with the wool growors of m1< oteto, to lolk over tho wool situation with thSM sad to osplain to tho» tho adwantagos of tho oo-opor&tiTo narhatlr^ of thslr wool ti&rough tho Satlonal wool iiaricatiag Corpor*tlon, with which said wrowlag Mol CooM»ttwo ttnzhoting AaaooiaUoa was and is affillatedj that affiant wag in tho City of Cagpox* tho Stato of Wyoming on said 16th day of April 1931, tho day ths suauBone and a copy of tho petition in tho oage of Roy 9. Minty vs. Draper A Company, ino. was eexwed upon him, st tho roquoet Qt said owing Wool Co*oporativs Saidcetli^ Assoolatlon, for the above dee- soribed purpoees, and for no other purpose whateoevoTi that affiant was not in said city and state os said date on any business oonneoted with Draper A Cowpany, Inc., nor did he trasMot and carry on any business for said oorporation while in the State of Vyoaiag. And further affiant sayeUt not. ^bsorlbed and owom to before m this 1931. sotSrf^?idstic7 day of fane, �District Court for the District fif i^omin^ In the Case of HOY B. MINTY - PLAINTIFF vs DRAPER & COMPASY. IKCOHPOrvATKD - DEFEHDAiiT. A F £1£A V IX I, JOSEPH DRAPER, of Caston In the County of Norfolk and Comffionwealth of Uaeeaonusetts, on oath depose and say: (1) Tnat Draper A Company, Incorporated, la a corporation organized under tne la«s of the Commonwealth of Sassachusette; (2) That I a® the duly elected and qualified treasurer of the said corporation, which position I have occupied since December 15, 1921, and that I am familiar with the business and affairs of the said corporation; (3) That the said Draper A Company, Incorporated, until December, 1929, conducted a wool merchandising business, with offices at 281 Summer Street, Boston, MaseachuBetts, in pursuance of which it dealt In a substantial way in wools produced in the Vnlted States, buying from Western growers, preparing the wools for sale and selling the same to Eastern mills and other buyers; (4) That since December, 1929, Draper A Company, Incor- porated, has done no domestic grease wool business on Its own account but has represented the national rool Marketing Corporation In the sale of wools consigned to the last-mentioned corporation by the woolgrowers♦ co-operative organizations throughout the United States; (5) That In its contract with the said National Wool Marketing Corporation, the said Draper & Company, Incorporated, agreed to conduct no business in domestic grease wools; (6) That the said Draper A Company, Incorporated, hao never had a place of buolness or office in the State of Wyoming; (7) that the said Draper A Company, Incorporated, prior to August, 1929, occaBlonally bought wools In the State of Wyoming, �which wools were always bought for immediate shipment East and were actually shipped at once out of the State of Wyoming end not otherwise handled, sold or dealt in until thereafter; (8) That since August, 1329, Draper & Company, Incorpor­ ated, has done no business of any nature on its own account in the State of Wyoming; (9) That at no time has Draper & Company, Incorporated* conducted regularly any business in the State of Wyoming, its only business activixies there at any time being the purchase of wools at rare intervals as described in the preceding paragraphs; (10) That on the sixteenth day of April* 1931, when the purported service of summons was attempted to be wade upon the said Draper & Company, Incorporated, th© said corporation had not since August, 1929, transacted any business of any nature on its own account in the State of Wyoming; (11) That Paul A. Draper, the person upon the pre­ tended service of suaiwne was omde in this case, was not at ths time acting as agent of the defendant in the State of Wyoming but was a visitor In said Staxe on the invitation of the wyoodng 'fool Growers Association to attend their annual convention. IS WXTMSSS SBSHEOF, I, the said Joseph P. Draper, being duly sworn, hereunto set my name this thirteenth day of June, 1931. Suffolk, 88» June 13, 1931. On the thirteenth day of June, 1931, appeared tn© above named Joseph ?. Draper, personally known to me, and made oath that the statements contained in Uie aoove affidavit, by him subscribed. are true. Before me. Notary Public. �2. li'i's-D iI4112 O Z- A MZ i i'Z A District Court . District of Wyoming . ■' in the Case of _,;RCY B.. MINTY - PLAIKTIKF vs. DBAPSR company; INCORPORATED - DEFIiJNDAN.T- ,■ >. AZZISAIiI - ■■ r,':^CHOE Wi BRO^ of Boston in the County'Of ' Suf folk and Sommonweaith of agtssachusetts, on oathT depose and/say; That Draper & Company,;IncofporatecL,\is a corporation " organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; (3) -That 1 »aa-aadl JafiT© Peen since Decemher 15^^ 1921, . the duly elected and qualified clerk and assistant trdasufer of the, said Draper & Company, Incorporated, and that I am familiar with the business and affairs of said corporation; (3) That the said Draper. & Company, Incorporated, until December, 1929j-, conducted'a wool merchandising business, with offices ■. at 281 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts, in pursuance of xvhich'it"" ’■ ■" ■ dealt in a substantial way in W'ools produced in the United States, buying from. Western growers, prep.arihg the: wools for sale and selling the same to Eastern mills and other buyers;. ; '(4) That^ ■since' December., 1929, Draper A Company, Incorpor* , * ated, has done bo doiaest-i<<^^easeiwoi business -on rite - own .account but has represehted the National’i^ol Marketings Corporation in the hale .of wools ; cbnsighed;to the iast-mentioned corporation by co-opeTa* tlve organlzatibhs of woolgrowers thrbughbut the United States; ■ (5) That-iri; its bohtract ..with the said National "^bl Market- ;y;-<;lng Corporation, the said Draper &■ Comply, Incorporated, agreed not ■ ’■ to conduct any businesB in domestic'grease.wools; �•: ■’ (6) That the said. DrEper & Company, Incorporated., has not . now and never hO-d a place of business or office in the State of '^yo;■ -niing;. ■■■■;/ '■■■ (7) - .._ . . That the said Draper & Company, Incorporated, prior to August, 1929, occa^dnhily bought.wools iii the State of ffyoming, which wools were always bought for immediate shipinent East and were actually shipped at once out of the State of Wyoming and not other­ wise handled, sold or dealt in until after such shipment had been made; (3) That since August, 1929, Draper & Company, Incorpora­ ted, has done no business of any nature on its own account in the State of Wyoming; (9) That at no time has Draper & Company, Incorporated, • conducted regularly any business in.; the State: of Wyoming, its only business activities there at any time being the purchase of wools at rare intervals as described, in the preceding paragraphs; i§31, when the' —■ P^fported. Bervice of Summons was attempted'to be made upon the said Draper &.;Company, incorporated, the said corporation had no agent in the State of Wyoming and had not since August, 1929, transacted any business of. any hature on its own account in the said State; (11) That Paul A, Draper, the person upon whom the pre­ tended service of summons was made in this case, was on tiie sixteenth day of April, 1931, a visitor in the State of Wyoming: on the invita­ tion of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association to attend their annual convention, and neither at that time nor any other acted as agent of : the defendant.in said State; no action was at any time taken by: the board of - directors of Draper & Company, ‘ Incorporated, in any way authorising': ' ■ the said Paul -At praper to act as the representative of the said cor­ poration in the State of Wyoming,^nor was action taken by the said board authorizing any ijidividuai to act as such representative in said -State. ■ ? �IN -JITO88 iVHERBOF, I, the said. George ff. Brown, being duly sworn, hereunto set my name this thirteenth day of June, 1931. CChhON fiKALTH Uj' ju^/^oionwHUSui-TTB Suffolk/ ss. ji^ne 13, 1931, On the thirteenth day of June, 1931, appeared the above named George '.V. Brown, personally known to me, and made oath that the statements contained in the above affidavit, by him subscribed, are true, �rroMXHa THE STATE COUMTT OF MATOOMA <wl! ' ) t sa ) «• \i.. . z, . X« T8I OX9TOXQT owirt,. is^4 ■'?•■"•<■=■.■■ 4 iA-: .■-- DISTRICT ■4.4 ROT B. Mim^ Plaintiff, - vg - DRAPER A COHPAET, a Corporation, XmO., Defendant. ) M07I0E TO QUASH Comes now the above named defendant, Draper A Company, Inc., a Corporation, and moves the Court for an order setting aside the summons, and quashing and setting aside the service of eummona and the sheriff's return of service made in the above entitled matter, and as grounds for said motion, respectfully shows to the court as follows: 1. That the defendant is a foreign corporation, duly organised and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kassachusetts, with its headquarters and principal place of hue* iness in the City of Boston in said state. S. That the defendant on the 16th day of April, A.D, 1931, the day when said purported service of eumnone was attempted to be made upon this defendant, was not transacting any buelneas of any kind in the State of Wyoming and did not have any agent, office, or place of business in eald state, nor had defendant transacted any business, or had any agent, office, or place of businese in the State of Wyoming, for many years prior to said April 16th, 1931. 3« That Paul Draper, the person upon whoa the pretended servioe of suauons was made, was not on eaid April 16, 1931, and never had been an agent of the defendant in the State of Wyoming, . •44 �fcBd on tatd dat« not ftgdftt «f tatd defendant In th# State of Wyoming, but was in the state merely ae a visitor, and not as an a^ent or off>o«r of tofendant oors«><atloa, er on - ii- bueiness connected with dependent pdr^fation. Attorney for Defendant? ■:»''''^ ’’■,<■5?. > y-- �1 V (this side 6 km 1931 I OrCARD IS FOR ADt^ESS ] ��SUMMONS THE STATE OF WYOMING COUNTY OF NATRONA ) I ss. j To the Sheriff of Natrona County, Greeting: V K commanded J , to . notify ..4, DHAPSl Ife C0HPAN7. XSC«« —a corporation. You are Vhereby *rT:T that. .ha-H. been sued in the District Court of the i^xth Judicial District of the State of Wyoming, sitting in the City of Casper, within and for the County of Natrona, in the State of Wyoming, for the trial of causes arising under the laws of said state by. .......... — ROT B. and that unless..... day of ....answer the petition of the plaintiff herein filed on or before the 19/^ said petition, with all the matters and allegations therein contained will be taken as true, and judgment rendered accordingly. And make due return of this writ according to law on the.„ .................. day of............ A. D. 19^^ Witness 3oXI^ MoDomM, thereof, at the City of Casper, this Clerk of the District Court, and the seal day of. — ..................... 19jZ5^* Cleric of Court. Deputy. 0 Z i I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Roy B. Minty Papers Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/</a> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1930-1939 Description An account of the resource Roy B. Minty was a livestock broker out of Casper, WY. His office was located in the lobby of the Henning Hotel. Researchers will find letters and telegrams exchanged between Minty and Draper and Draper Incorporated Wool out of Boston, Massachusetts among other items of potential interest to the sheep and wool industry in Wyoming during the 1930s. Minty's papers consist of correspondence, data on Wyoming sheep ranchers from 1934, correspondence in regard to the Careyhust Ranch from 1937-1939, information on a Wind River Day School lamb sale, as well as ledgerbooks, settlement slips, bills of sale, contracts, agreements, and more. These records date from the late 1920s to the late 1930s. Type The nature or genre of the resource Collection Access Rights Information about who can access the resource or an indication of its security status. Access Rights may include information regarding access or restrictions based on privacy, security, or other policies. Archivists are happy to assist anyone with accessing the physical or electronic copies of these records. The Casper College Goodstein Foundation Library is glad to grant uses of this material that it actively manages and cares for and will provide its publication policy upon request. Language A language of the resource ENG Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NCA 01.ii.2023.03_RoyBMintyPapers Extent The size or duration of the resource. 37.5 megabytes (3 folders, 43 files) Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Roy B. Minty vs. Draper and Draper and Company Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/</a> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1931-1934 Description An account of the resource Plaintiff Case file of Roy B. Minty vs. Draper and Draper and Company. As part of the Roy B. Minty Papers, researchers will find letters and telegrams exchanged between Minty and Draper and Draper Incorporated Wool out of Boston, Massachusetts among other items of potential interest to the sheep and wool industry in Wyoming during the 1920s and 1930s. Minty's papers consist of correspondence, data on Wyoming sheep ranchers, correspondence in regard to the Careyhust Ranch, as well as ledger books, settlement slips, bills of sale, contracts, agreements, and more. These records date from the late 1920s to the late 1930s. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource ENG Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NCA 01.ii.2023.03_MintyvsDraper_PlaintiffCaseFile Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Extent The size or duration of the resource. 22.4 megabytes (133 pages) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Roy B. Minty Papers, NCA 01.ii.2023.03 WyCaC US. Casper College Archives and Special Collections.