St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-08
GRANT & WARD.
Assignee Davies Inventory = Their
Affairs in a Terrible
Middle.

NEW YORK, July Assignee Dawes
their liabilities to be SIC, 792, 647; nominal
assets, $27, 139, 09S; actual assets, $67, ia.
The assignee says it is impossible to ascer-
tain who were the owners of all the securi-
ties in the possession of Grant q Ward at
the time of the failure, of all the securities
pledged by them and held by creditors as
collaterals for loans; also, what was the in
terest of Grant & Ward in the securities
found in their possession or pledged by them
as collateral for loans. The books do not
show with any accuracy the transactions of
the firm. No cash book or journal
was ever kept, no balance sheet has ever
been taken, n o complete list of assets appears,
either upon their books or among their pa
pers. The assignee says he had to depend
on the statements Of members of the firm,
and those claiming to hold obligations OF the
firm, or doing business with it. In nearly
every case where the firm had dealings with
customers or.pledges of securities, the stocks
or bonds left in their custody had either been
sold or rehypothecated. No complete book of
bills payable and bills receivable was kept.
In cases where stocks were
rehypotheoated they were generally
rehypothecated for larger amounts
than had been loaned by Grant and Ward
upon them. In the disqualification of secur-
tiles pledged with the firm, no attempt was
made to keep together the securities which
were pledged together, or to keep the securi
ties of one individual distinct from another.
The pledges neglected to inform the assignee
as to certain matters connected with the firm
which had rendered him unable at present
to make a more satisfactory summary of the
assets and liabilities. Nearly all the securi-
ties of any substantial value which came into
the possession of assignee, May Sth, 1884,
are claimed by Third parties, many OF these
the assignee claims are subject to payment
by pledges of amounts loaned to them
thereon. In nearly every case the amount
of these claims in dispute are very large pc
cuniary transactions in the name of Grant 81
Ward, and with friends of Grant 81 Ward,
carried on by Fish d Ward, during 1882,
1888 and 1884, Of which no record appears
on the books of the firm, and the only evil
dence of which is found in the individual
check books of Ward, and in memoranda in
private books kept by Ward and by Fish u
Ward jointly.
The assignee says the information came to
him that Grant IL Ward represented to vari-
Gus parties that the firm had contracts
with the United States government which
were exceedingly profitable. That they Dor
rowed immense sums from various parties
for the purpose of investment by the firm in
such alleged contracts, and the lenders were
guaranteed the profits of certain amounts.
The assignee believes these transactions
nothing more nor less than borrowing money
at usurious rates and upon fraudulent re-
presentations. He believes law to be that SO
far as the defence of usury is concerned
Grant IL Ward have waived that defence by
entering the particular persons in schedule
A, and he does not admit that any of these
parties are entitled to receive anything from