|Hibbing | Red Wing | St. Anthony | People | Occupations | Landscapes | Milestones | Timelines | Tours|
|Home / Hibbing / People / Leonidas Merritt / Legal Complaint Against Rockefeller / Transcription|
Title: Legal Complaint Against Rockefeller
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Person who brings legal action against another person or company. vs.
DULUTH, MISSABE & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.Person who must defend himself in a court of law.
Plaintiff alleges, Charges without proving. as common to all of the causes of action hereinafter stated, Legal language meaning everything from that point on. that at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was, and now is, a railway corporation created, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and having its lines of railway in St. Louis County, in said State. By reference this allegation Charge that has not been proven. is hereby made a part of all of the cases of action hereinafter stated.
1. For a first cause of action against the defendant, the plaintiff, repeating the allegations hereinabove-contained, says, that from October 27, 1891, to October 13, 1893, he was the duly elected, qualified and acting vice-president of the defendant, Properly hired and worked as vice president of Rockefeller's company. and during that time performed the usual duties of that position, and in addition thereto, and outside of his duties as such vice-president, at its instance and request performed services for the defendant as managing agent at the eastern office of the company in the city and state of New York, and as financial agent in the negotiation of loans and the procurement Acquiring. of money to be used, and which was used in the construction of the defendant's lines of railway and ore docks Area where ore is loaded into ships. and in the purchase of materials and the payment of labor which entered into the same.
That the defendant accepted the service herin-above mentioned and received the benefits thereof, and promised and agreed to and with the plaintiff to pay him therefor so much money as the same Work described above. were fairly and reasonably worth; that such service were and are fairly reasonably worth the sum of $40,000, and that, although plaintiff has made due demand Requested his fair pay. on the defendant for said sum, the defendant has refused and still refuses to pay said sum or any part thereof, or any sum whatever for said services.
2. For a second and further cause of action against the defendant, plaintiff repeats and by reference Clarifies that he is bringing the second charge against the same company. makes a part of this cause of action the allegation that defendant is a corporation in manner and form as hereinabove alleged, and says that between October 27, 1891, and March 1, 1894, at defendant's instance and request, The company's urging and asking. he paid and expended Spent. of his own moneys for its own use and benefit, the various sums of money for the purposes hereinafter stated, which defendant promised and agreed to prepay him on demand, to wit:
For rend of offices for the defendent for fourteen months from and including January, 1893, to March, 1894, at $75 per month, $1,050; for salary of M.M. Clark, clerk for defendant in plaintiff's office for above period at $100 per month, $1,400; for rent of telephone during above period,