John P. Cabanne, Pierre Chouteau, Barthole Benthold, Bernard Pratte, and Michael Smuel vs. Charles Hempstead, Theodore Hunt, and Manuel Lisa
View original image: Page  013
[missing figure]

State ofMissouri MissouriMissouri In the Court (Superior)
Judicial District
March Term 1822

The joint and several of may Executrex and
March S. executive of the last mill and testment of
Manurm lisa deceased of the dependants to the Bill of
complaint of John p Buchold
Pune ChouteauChouteau Jimen. BernardBernard Halte and Michail ImmellImmell

Dependents norr and at all times June after saving and referring
to themselves sincerely and respectively all and all manner of benefit and
advantage of exception, that can, or may be had to the many errors and
uncertainties insufficiences and otherimperfections in the said complaints
said Bill of conplaint contained, for , or unto so much
there of as there Dependents are adviced in mannual and necessary
for them to make , and and say

What they have been informed that a partnership was formed
between said complainants and said and Manurl LisaLisa
deceased, at the time, and in the stated in said Bill of complaint
and that the exhibeted ranked no. 1 of said complaints as part
of then Bill is a copy of said articles of -

That said partners purchesed goods- handed the same
until the time stated in said Bill, and that at that period
a majority of said partners did sell and abandoned to said Manurl
LisaLisa deceased the property maintain in said artecles of
and in the , on the terms, and for the consideration stated in
said artecles all which may more fully appear by reference to said
two articles of agreement mentioned as exhibed No 2 in said complainants
Bill of complaint -

These said Dependents among, say, that they are
ignorant of any meaning intent of said to articles of agreement

View original image: Page  014
[missing figure]
make of exhibet No 2. then as mentioned, and sit
forth in said articles - to which these dependents again refer for
the true meaning, and intent of said contracting pointes - that whether
ther is any mistake in arranging the said artlecles this dependents cannnot
of then knowledge say - but they must that if any
mistake occured, that said complainants shall fully and satisfactorly
prove the same according to the street rules of evidence in such cases-
these dependents whom themselves that said complainants pretented
in various conversations between said HempsteadHempstead and own
of said complainants relatives to the articles of agreement above refused
to, that there was a mistake in arranging up said articles, it
the construction of the effect of the said explanatory article that a
difference of opinion existed- this said dependents
that constraction of said articles only said complainants in there
said Bill of complainants- and shall on the trial of
that said articles be constructed by the known and fixed rules in
and equity, upon the whole tenor of said articles and
according to the meaning and intent of said contracting parties as
therein-

There Dependents function, say, that they have
bring informed and beleave it true, that said Micharl
after that first day of June 1819 treated at the fred villago
a quantity of merchandize recived by him from the original company
of Cabame & Co, and that in the month of November following
he delivered the processof the same to said memurl LisaLisa deceased
bring the same mentioned in said receiptmarked do exhibit No
3. attached to said complainants Bill- these Dependents further
state that they have no knowledge of the go
said peirre , but missing that the complainants from then
said allgation in that behalf- and if it shall have after