Clipping:An ownership dispute over the Cincinnati Club; commentary on said suit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Thursday, September 28, 1882 |
|---|---|
| Text | In the Superior Court, yesterday, suit was brought by Justus Thorner against George Herancourt, Louis Kramer, Aaron Stern, John R. McLean, Victor Long and O. P. Caylor for the dissolution of a partnership. The petition alleges that on September 1, 1881 the plaintiff entered into an agreement of copartnership with Victor H. Long, John E. Price and O. P. Caylor to form the Cincinnati Base Ball Club, each partner to have one-fourth interest, and to share profits and losses equally; that it was understood at the time that Louis Kramer was interested in Long’s one-fourth interest, and entitled to half thereof; that Herancourt was interested with plaintiff in his interest, and entitled to half thereof; and that J. R. McLean was interested with Caylor, and entitled to half his interest. The plaintiff further alleges that Price died, and that Aaron Stern succeeded to his one-fourth interest; that in the organization of the club plaintiff was elected President, Herancourt Treasurer, and Stern Vice President, and these three, with Louis Kramer and Victor Long, constituted the Board of Directors. It is further set forth by the plaintiff that this Association has earned large profits, to the extend of $15,000 over and above all expenses, which sum is in the hands of George Herancourt as Treasurer; that since last June the plaintiff has been excluded from all participation in the affairs of the partnership, and from all meetings of the Club. It is alleged that the defendants now threaten to divide among themselves the accumulated profits, excluding the plaintiff from any share thereof, and he, therefore, asks that the Court shall order a dissolution of the partnership; that Herancourt be restrained from parting with any portion of the funds held by him as Treasurer, and that a Receiver be appointed, and the funds of the partnership be distributed among those entitled thereto. Cincinnati Commercial September 28, 1882 Now that the financial success of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club is assured, every ambitious young man in the city should sue for a share of the dividends. So far the returns of the claimants are fair. It is presumed, however, that if the Club’s books had balanced on the other side, these same wronged creatures would not be suing for the privilege of paying their alleged shares of the deficits. Cincinnati Commercial September 29, 1882 [Caylor’s Answer to John R. McLean vs. O. P. Caylor, the Cincinnati Base Ball Club and Geo. L. Harencourt, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 66.631] And now comes the defendant, O. P. Caylor, and for answer to plaintiff’s petition denies that the plaintiff is the owner of one of the shares of said base ball club, but says that a long time prior to the bringing of this suit the plaintiff parted with any interest he had therein by making a gift thereof to this defendant, and transferring and delivering his said interest or share to this defendant. This defendant admits that the plaintiff was one of the original subscribers to said base ball club, by paying a small sum of money, merely for the purpose of organization, which was some time prior to July 14, 1881; defendant admits that at this time plaintiff subscribed and paid in said money, he was in the employ of the plaintiff, in charges of what is known as the “Base Ball Column,” of the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, and newspaper in the city of Cincinnati, of which the plaintiff was the proprietor, but the defendant denies that the plaintiff ever requested said club to recognize and treat this defendant as his agent and representative, as in the petition alleged, and the defendant says that the plaintiff never notified said club or said partnership that he had any interest or share in said club or business, never demanded that he be recognized in any manner as the owner of any share, or as interested in any manner, until the bringing of this suit. Defendant admits that said club or partnership treated him as the owner of said share, and alleges that he is such owner, and always has been since the same was transferred and delivered to him by the plaintiff, as aforesaid, on the day of June, 1881; defendant did leave the employ of the plaintiff on or about the 18th day of August, 1881, to resume the practice of the law, and afterwards also engaged with the Cincinnati Daily Commercial, a newspaper published in Cincinnati, to do occasional literary and other work for said paper. Defendant denies that he ever represented the plaintiff in said partnership or club, and denies that the plaintiff ever notified said club of any revocation of said gift, or any revocation of any pretended authority over said share, and denies that he ever demanded of said club that it return him the right to represent any interest or share. It is true that said club failed to recognize the plaintiff as the owner of any share, because he never claimed such ownership, and never asked to be so recognized, and never asked to be present at any meetings, and was not in fact present at any meetings, and was not in fact the owner of any share of interest from the time he paid said small sum of money for an interest in said club, and made a gift thereof, and transferred and delivered the same to this defendant as a gift. But now, so it is, that since the defendant has left the employ of the plaintiff and engaged with the Cincinnati Daily Commercial, and because said club has earned large profits, the plaintiff is seeking to revoke his said gift, and pretends that he is the owner of said share. Plaintiff has at no time given any service, time or attention to said partnership, and has not at any time been connected or identified with said partnership or any of its affairs, and never was associated with the other members of said partnership, as a partner or otherwise, and never had any contract or any kind of interest or partnership with them; but the defendant has given his entire time, services and skill thereto, and this defendant avers that he is the sole owner of said share and that the plaintiff has no interest therein whatever, and the defendant denies each and every other allegation in the petition inconsistent herewith. Wherefore, this defendant prays that the Court will decree said share in said Base Ball Club and partnership to be the property of this defendant, that the plaintiff’s petition be dismissed, and for all other and proper relief in the premises. M. F. Wilson and Long, Kramer & Kramer, attorneys for defendant. Cincinnati Commercial October 8, 1882 |
| Source | Cincinnati Commercial Tribune |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />