The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-12-11
COMPLICATIONS IN BUSINESS.

Allen & Pratt, the firm of insurance
agents representing the Providence Say
ing Company, who tly dissolved part
nership, were attached last saturday by Jo-
seph Castor for S1450. The strange feat
ure of this proceeding is that only the real
estate of Isaac p. Allen was levied on, al
though in the suit George c. Pratt Is named
rs a co-defendant.
A lot on Twenty-fOurth street, near
Douglass, 81 :Sx1l4 feet; lot on the north
east corner of Twenty fourth and Belle
vue and two lots in block $50. South San
Francisco, tide lands survey, we're covered
by the attachment. The amount is S1450
Reference to the records reveals the fact
that all the property stands in the name
of Alice Allen, wife of Isaac 2. Allen.
Allen was identified with the Home
Benefit Company which failed recently.
He was appointed its president, which po-
sition he held until its business was REIN
sured by the Mutual Benefit Life Assoca-
ton of America. He was also associated
with George q. Pratt in the Providence
Saving Company. On November Is they
dissolved partnership. and five days later
the Providence Company published no.
tees of the dissolution. in which it was
receive money OF transact business for that
concern.
The business was continued by Pratt
alone.
Later on Allen identified himself with
the Fraternal Life Company. local or
GauiZation at present closing up its affairs
and going out of business. His work Is to
effect reinsurance with the jewelers. and
Tradesmen's Company of New York.
The Fraternal Life has been very much in
the background for Two or three years.
1t has never reported to the Insurance
Commissioner since the Mutual law went
into effect in 1892 requiring $4,000 to be de-
posted with the Insurance Commissioner
before business could be transacted. NOR
has il done any business in that Line be-
yond closing up its affairs. Allen is said
to be the whole company as matters are
to-day, and he was secretary of the
Fraternal Life some years ago and man.
aged to get control of it lately.
Pratt declined to discuss the attachment,
even the connection of his Eame with his
former partner, saying il was purely a
personal matter of no public interest, and
that he had paid and can pay all his bills.
Allen asserted he had not been informed
of the attachment which surprised him e1-
ceedingly. He knew only that bill of
$l450 stood against the defunct firm, and
a note for the amount is now in the Ne
vada Bank. He claimed to have no
knowledge of Joseph Castor who filed the
attachment.
There was no necessity whatever for
such proceeding" he said. The firm of
Allen & Pratt is well able to pay its liabill-
ties. Wnen partnership was dissolved ar
engagements were made to pay off our
Liabilities. l can't imagine why nv prop
erty should be attached now. There is
note against the firm for $1450 which is
not vet due, but suppose the dissolution
frightened the payee and he levied an at
tachment. Mr.. Pratt should have paid this
bill. and l don't know why he did not do
So"
The fact of the case is learned from good
authority to be that Aliens personal in
debiedness was rejected by Pratt, and
feeling is high between the old partners in
consequence.