[D0111AAF], Letter from Llewellyn Barton Case to Thomas Alva Edison, February 28th, 1901
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D0111AAF
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D0111AAF], Letter from Llewellyn Barton Case to Thomas Alva Edison, February 28th, 1901
Author
Recipient
Mentioned
Date
1901-02-28
Type
Subject
Folder/Volume ID
D0111-F
Microfilm ID
187:176
Document ID
D0111AAF
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Has Version
Transcription
New York, Feb. 28th, 1901
Thomas A. Edison Esq.,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange N.J.
Dear Sir:-
Mr. John A. Thompson of this City and Treasurer of the Thomas A. Edison Jr., and William Holzer Steel and Iron Process Company, has handed to me a copy of a letter written to you by Mr. C.C. Hickok concerning the matter of contempt proceedings which were pending in re McMahon against Holzer and Edison, Jr., and Mr. Thompson requested that I inform you of the present status of this case, and also, that you may see that the case has been properly conducted, I desire to lay before you the following information.
William McMahon, the plaintiff in this action, claims the right to a large amount of stock in the above company in remuneration for services which he alleges to heave rendered the defendants, this we deny.
Application for an injunction was made by said McMahon and upon presentation of opposing affidavits and argument in opposition by myself, Judge Bookstaver denied the plaintiffs request with $10.00 costs to defendants. Answer was then interposed and after issue was joined, adelay of several months ensued before McMahon's attorney put the case on the calendar for trial. At the time the case came up for trial, Mr. Holzer was in Europe and I was unable to properly present the defense because of his absence so I permitted the case to go by default, expecting to reopen the same upon Mr. Holzer's return. Mr. Holzer returned to this Country the latter part of December, after an absence abroad of about nine months, and I immediately obtained an order to show cause why this judgement should not be reopened and we are permitted to come in and defend upon the merits. Our remedy in this order the show cause was granted by Judge Dugro and the case is now on the calendar again for trial within the near future.
The plaintiff did obtain an order to show cause why defendants should not be punished for contempt in not complying with the judgement rendered upon the inquest held by the plaintiff in that defendants should turn over to plaintiff a large amount of their stock, which plaintiff now considers valuable. However, of course, this contempt is now stayed, and we have no doubt of our ability to defeat the plaintiff upon the merits.
Mr. Hickok stated to me yesterday in my office, that he did not understand the case and had written you the letter in question upon the request of of Mr. McMahon. I, therefore, suggested to Mr. Hickok that his action was quite unprofessional, especially as Mr. Hickok is not the attorney of record for the plaintiff and knew nothing about the present status of the case.
Trusting I have made the matter clear and that I have not trespassed unnecessarily upon your time, I remain,
Yours very sincerely,
L. Barton Case
Thomas A. Edison Esq.,
Edison Laboratory,
Orange N.J.
Dear Sir:-
Mr. John A. Thompson of this City and Treasurer of the Thomas A. Edison Jr., and William Holzer Steel and Iron Process Company, has handed to me a copy of a letter written to you by Mr. C.C. Hickok concerning the matter of contempt proceedings which were pending in re McMahon against Holzer and Edison, Jr., and Mr. Thompson requested that I inform you of the present status of this case, and also, that you may see that the case has been properly conducted, I desire to lay before you the following information.
William McMahon, the plaintiff in this action, claims the right to a large amount of stock in the above company in remuneration for services which he alleges to heave rendered the defendants, this we deny.
Application for an injunction was made by said McMahon and upon presentation of opposing affidavits and argument in opposition by myself, Judge Bookstaver denied the plaintiffs request with $10.00 costs to defendants. Answer was then interposed and after issue was joined, adelay of several months ensued before McMahon's attorney put the case on the calendar for trial. At the time the case came up for trial, Mr. Holzer was in Europe and I was unable to properly present the defense because of his absence so I permitted the case to go by default, expecting to reopen the same upon Mr. Holzer's return. Mr. Holzer returned to this Country the latter part of December, after an absence abroad of about nine months, and I immediately obtained an order to show cause why this judgement should not be reopened and we are permitted to come in and defend upon the merits. Our remedy in this order the show cause was granted by Judge Dugro and the case is now on the calendar again for trial within the near future.
The plaintiff did obtain an order to show cause why defendants should not be punished for contempt in not complying with the judgement rendered upon the inquest held by the plaintiff in that defendants should turn over to plaintiff a large amount of their stock, which plaintiff now considers valuable. However, of course, this contempt is now stayed, and we have no doubt of our ability to defeat the plaintiff upon the merits.
Mr. Hickok stated to me yesterday in my office, that he did not understand the case and had written you the letter in question upon the request of of Mr. McMahon. I, therefore, suggested to Mr. Hickok that his action was quite unprofessional, especially as Mr. Hickok is not the attorney of record for the plaintiff and knew nothing about the present status of the case.
Trusting I have made the matter clear and that I have not trespassed unnecessarily upon your time, I remain,
Yours very sincerely,
L. Barton Case