The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-03-22
ON DEMURRER.
Arguments in the McG0wan-DaviS
Case In Appellate Court.
Plaintiff Claims Receipts from Pain Killer
Business Are Too Small.

Justices Stiness and Tillinghast in the
Appellate Court today heard arguments
on the demurrer filed by the defendants to
the bill In equity brought by Eva X. ID.
McGowau, wife of John f. McGowan Of
New York city. The defendants are Fran
els Peabody, Jr. of Boston, administrator
on the estate OF Horace > Bloodgood, who
died at Narragansett Pier August 81, 1896,
Edmund w. Davis of South kiDgstown,
executor of the will of Ida il. Bloodgood,
Horace l.. Bloodgood administrator on the
estate of Mary L. Dennis and executor of
the will of Sarah d. Dennis and stephen
A. Cooke Jr., trustee for Ruth Lenora
Sayles an heir under the will OF Sarah ID.
Dennis.
Mrs McGowan and Edmund w. Davis
are grandchildren of Perry Davis the
founder Of the Perry Davis Pain Killer.
Mrs. McGowan in her bill sets up that her
receipts from the business of manufacture
ing and selling this well known medicine
have been far lower than what they should
have been and she alleges that, after her
father died, Bloodgood and Mrs. Sarah ID.
Dennis managed the business just as
they wished and that for long time
Bloodgood and Edmund w. Davis drew
large sums of money from the company
for which they rendered no services in re-
turn. She now seeks an accounting from
those in charge of the business and asks
that IL may be In future so managed that
she can get what rightfully belongs To her
of the profits. Another charge made is
that Bloodgood and Edmund w. Davis
made the business co-partnership With
out her consent.
Mrs. McGowan claims that as heir-at-
law and legatce under the will of her
father she Is entitled Co one-fourth OF her
fathers interest in the trade mark and
three-sixteenths of her father interest In
the business and that by the death OF her
mother she became entitled To one-third of
the trade mark and she also alleges that
in 1858 her father purchased Perry Davis
interest in the business.
Counsel for the defendants In support OF
the demurrer urged that there were no
allegations of fraud in the bill brought hy
Mrs. McGowan against Mrs. Dennis,
nothing to the effect that Mrs. Sayies
was in the partnership complained OF
nor that Mrs. McGowan ever claimed
right TO participate in the business. 1t
was also argued that there was no claim
for an account against the executors OF
Mrs. Dennis, and that in the absence OF
the charge of fraud claims against execu
tors are barred by our statute OF limita-
I'll ms and also that no charge Is made in
t 10 bill that Mrs. Dennis or Mrs. Sayles
received more than their share of the pro-
fits arising from the business. Up TO this
time il was argued Mrs. McGowan had
never asked for an account though IL
would seem likely that in IL years she
might have obtained notices that Blood
good. .and Davis were receiving more than
their shares of the profits.
4 In support of the bill 1t was argued that
the bill was filed as soon as the facts COM
planned of became known TO Mrs. Nc
Gowan and that the different parties TO
the bill are all properly formed.
s. Il. Douglass was counsel for Mrs. Nc
a. Inns nd
Gilrain represented the defendants.
At the conclusion of the hearing the
ourt overruled the demurrer as to Ruth
l.. Saylcs.