Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
Hallet & Davis Interests Assign,
HALLET & DAVIS, CHICAGO, SCHAEFFER PIANO CO., CHICAGO, AM) HALLET & DAVIS, BOSTON,
MAKE ASSIGNMENTS IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT OTHER CONCERNS WILL
BE FORCED TO. SUCCUMB AS A DIRECT OUTCOME
OF THE H. & D. TROUBLE.
HALLET & DAVIS, CHICAGO.
O
N Friday last the Hallet & Davis Co.
of Chicago made an assignment to
Geo. C. Aldrich, vice president of the com-
pany. The assets of the company are said
to be $283,000, while the liabilities approx-
imate $140,000.
The Hallet & Davis Co., Chicago, was in-
corporated about a year and a half ago,
and was formed with the intention of being
a Western depot for the distribution of
the Hallet & Davis pianos.
The officers of the company are Geo.
Cook, president, who is also president of
the Boston corporation of the same name;
G. C. Aldrich, vice president; Raymond K.
Maynard, treasurer, and H. B. Strong, sec-
retary.
The capital stock of the company
was $200,000, $40,000 of which was owned
by t;ie Hallet & Davis Co. of Boston. It is
said that the company have been doing a
business of from $30,000 to $50,000 a
month, and the only cause of the failure
was the fact that the closeness of the money
market made the acquisition of loans suffi-
cient to carry the business forward ;.s it
should have been carried practically impos-
sible. Collections were slow, and as a
large proportion of the business of the in-
solvent concern was on the installment
plan, it was practically impossible for the
company to raise money.
Geo. C. Aldrich, the vice president, was
named as the assignee. It is believed that
the company will resume business in the
near future, that application for an exten-
sion of the liabilities will be granted and
that the Co. will be able to take care of
its liabilities as they mature.
THE SCHAEFFER PIANO CO.
Close on the announcement of the Hal-
let & Davis Co. Chicago assignment came
the statement that the Scbaeffer Piano Co.,
who maintained office rooms in the Hallet
& Davis building, had made an assignment
to F. E. Jennison.
The failure of the Schaeffer Piano Co.
was a direct result of the failure of the Hallet
& Davis Co., so closely interwoven were
their affairs. The Schaeffer Piano Co.,
of which I. N. Rice was the resident
manager, has it is said assets approxi-
mating $85,000, liabilities $30,000.
The officers of the Schaeffer Piano Co.
are Geo. Cook, president; L. E. Rice, vice
president; I. N. Rice, secretary; J. H.
Rice, treasurer.
The Chicago Hallet &
Davis Co. were purchasers of a large pro-
portion of their output.
HALLET & DAVIS PIANO MFG. CO., BOSTON.
After the failures of the Hallet &
Davis Co., Chicago, and the Schaeffer
Piano Co. had been announced, it was
believed by many that the parent house
in Boston could not withstand the strain.
It could not and Saturday afternoon this
old established house made an assignment
to Geo. W. Morse and E. N. Kimball.
This company was incorporated for half a
million.
The officers are Geo. Cook, president; E.
N. Kimball, vice presidtnt; W. D. Cook,
treasurer, and E. N. Kimball, Jr., secre-
tary.
The Hallet & Davis Co. was one
of the old landmarks of the trade, as it
were, being established in 1839. It has al-
ways borne the highest reputation for com-
mercial honor and integrity.
The unofficial statement which is given
out of the company's affairs places the lia-
bilities at $175,000, while the assets approx-
mate $400,000.
With such a magnificent
showing it is a certainty that the speedy
resumption of manufacturing by this com-
pany will take place.
A large list of alleged branches of the
Hallet & Davis interests has already ap-
peared in public print. The Hallet &
Davis Co. as a corporation is not in-
terested, as we understand, in any outside
branches, although individual members of
the corporation hold stock at a number of
important points in the companies among
which we may designate the following:
The llollenberg Music Co., Little Rock,
Ark.; Tway Piaro Co., New York; Mon-
telius Piano Co., Denver, Col.; Hallet &
Davis Co., Cleveland.
It is not probable that any one of the
above named companies will be forced to
succumb owing to the failure of the Hallet
& Davis Co. In Little Rock, the W. W.
Kimball Co. are largely interested in the
Hollenberg interests, while in New York,
Mr. W. F. Tway, who is at the head of the
Tway Piano Co., states that he does not be-
lieve his company will be involved in any
financial difficulties as a direct outcome of
the Hallet & Davis assignment.
In Cleveland, Mr. A. G. Clemmer, "-hois
the resident manager, will undoubtedly
steer clear of the shoals. In Denver W.
W. Montelius likewise, as there are other
Eastern firms interested in the Montelius
Company.
Tended to Deceive the Public.
THE
COURT
DECIDES
IN FAVOR
OF OTTO
GRAU ON ONE IMPORTANT COUNT.
J
UDGE HOLLISTER on Wednesday
handed down an opinion overruling
the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's
petition in the suit of Otto Grau & Co.
against H. Lindeman & Son, to enjoin the
Lindemans from selling pianos stenciled
on the front with the words "Lindeman
Piano Company, Cincinnati," and on the
metal frame with the words " Lindeman
Piano Company." The petition averred
that the words were in imitation of the
mark describing the make of the Linde-
man Sons' piano, of New York, a siiperior
instrument to the one sold by the Cincin-
nati Lindemans, and tended to deceive
purchasers into the belief that they were
actually purchasing the New York piano,
and that the imitation is made the more
harmful by the representations of defend-
ants to customers that they are actually
selling the New York piano made by Lin-
deman & Sons. The plaintiffs are agents
of the New York Lindeman piano.
The Court holds that the claim of plain-
tiffs that the stenciled words " Lindeman
Piano Company, Cincinnati," tends to de-
ceive overstates their case, and that a pro-
spective purchaser could not possibly be
deceived by such marks on the piano. On
the contrary, he would be justified in
thinking the piano was of Cincinnati make.
The Court holds, therefore, that there is
no misrepresentation to plaintiffs' injury in
the use of the brand.
The representations to purchasers, how-
ever, that the New York and Cincinnati
houses were the same, the New York Linde-
man piano having a reputation of value to
its makers, the Court held, tended to deceive
the public. The result was a fraud on the
New York concern. The Court finds that
the petition states a good cause of action,
and overrules the demurrer.
Did Not Have Husband's Consent.
HENCE THE HELL CO. HAD TO PAY $ 1 5 0 FOR
AN OLD ORGAN.
A
RATHER unusual suit has just been
decided in London, Ont., against the
Bell Organ & Piano Co., of Guelph. It
was for the purpose of recovering the value
of an organ taken from the plaintiff, G. F.
Gibson, under peculiar circumstances. It
appears that Mrs. Gibson fancied a $400
piano which she saw in the warerooms. and
it was arranged that if she would take the
piano the company would allow her $125
for an old organ which she had in her pos-
session. When the piano was placed in the
house, and the organ removed, Mr. Gibson
formally objected to the arrangement, and
notified them to take the piano away, and
Mrs. Gibson later informed the company of
her husband's objection to the exchange.
Later, however, the company removed the
piano, but in the meantime the organ was
sold, hence the suit.
In his address to the jury Judge Elliot
said there was no doubt but that Mrs. Gib-
son signed the document of exchange. If
the husband had stood by, however, and
offered no objection to the note being
signed it would be binding, but when a wife
undertook to enter an agreement contrary
to the expressed desire of her husband, it
altered the case. Mrs. Gibson admits that
she was going contrary to Mr. Gibson's
wish, but that the company's representa-
tives coaxed her into signing the agree-
ment. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1 55.