The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-11-15
IMMENSE FAILURE.
The Firm Of W. |. Strong & Co. Has
Large Liabilities.
A RECEIVER NAMED FOR FIRM.
Dead Members Of Firm Had "Swapped
Paper Says Bank Official.
ENDORSED EACH OTHERS NOTES.
The Firms Liabilities, II Is Said, WIN Reach
S6,OOO,OOO.
IT IS THE BIGGEST FAILURE IN YEARS
Justice Andrews of the Supreme
Court Appoints Edw. Treat Re-
ccIver for the Firm.
The Firms Liabilities, II Is Said, win Reach
S6,O0O,OOO.
IT IS THE BIGGEST FAILURE IN YEARS

New York, November 14.--Justice An
drews, in the supreme court has APP
pointed Edward A. Treat receiver for the
firm of w. l.. Strong & Co. His bond was
named as S250OOO. His sureties are Ed
ward a, Treat, August Juillard, John
Clslin and Cornelius n. Bliss. The suit
Is brought TO wind up the old FIRMS bust
ness. MI. Treat made the following state-
ment:
THE death of w l.. Strong and the
death of f ii. Stott who was the senior
partner OF the Stou WOODEN mills at
Stottswlle, N. ", in which the firm OF w.
L. Strong & Co. was largely interested
made il impossible TO negotiate the noes
that were maturing as both conc rms were
on the paper Therefore, for the pro-
lection of all creditors the remaining
members OF the firm and friends OF Mr..
Strong, together with the executors Ct
Colonel Strong's estate, all decided that
receiver ought to be appointed for the pur-
pose OF a speedy settlement of the firms
affairs.
"Mr F. H. stott died the day before
Colonel Strong was buried. His death
naturally complicated the situation and II
was thought that the relations between
the two could be worked out more speed
lily and better by the process of re-
ceivershlp than they could have been
cleared up by the remaining partners
New York, November 1.-THE appoint
ment of receiver for the firm Of VIII
liam l.. Strong d Co. has been dis
cussed with great interest in commercial
circles here today in view of the report
that the firms affairs are in much worse
shape than those who knew the late ex
Mayor Strong imagined. The Commercial
Advertiser today says: "A bank presi-
dent, who has been connected with tho
Arm, is quoted as saying 1t is rumored on
the street that the eX-mayor Was by no
means so rich as was supposed. Lately
Mr.. Stott had been presenting their notes
In sizes all the way from $4,000 to $780,
600, so that the leading banks became
cautious and then many Of us refused 10
discount their stock The two dead menu
bers OF the Arm had been doing what wo
call swapping paper Mr., Strong IN
dorsed Mr.. Stotts notes and Mr.. Stott
Endorsed Mr.. StrOng's. 1t was an he-
commodation paper aud served to show
that the firm was in growing difficulties"
The cause OF the Strong failure was
made public today by Butler Holman,
Joline and flinders, counsel for the nrm
In the action for the reoeiyership, which
resulted in the appointment OF Edward
A. Treat. Counsel said that the strong
firm had Endorsed more than 100000 in
notes for the Stott Wooden mills, for
which the firm was made good, and the
death of w. l.. Strong and OF w. II. Stott
heads of the two concerns, within three
days of each other had brought about
crisis by dissolving both firms az
moment when large sums were due The
Stott mills IRE located in Stottsvilie, ~
Y. One note Endorsed for the Stott COM
pany for 100000 Is due tomorrow Other
notes for nearly half million are que
soon. The Stott company, in which the
Strong company is largely Interested,
counsel said today. had Endorsed notes
in the Strong company in return, but FOR
an insignificant amount, probably less
than 500, 900 in all II either Mr.. strong
or Mr. stott had lived the difhculty might
have been settled without public empar-
rassment, said the representative OF tue
counsel.
I'VE can not say what action VIII DO
taken in order to find the business OF the
Stott company, sGt 1t is the debts OF that
concern rather than those OF Strong d
CO. that have brought about the pres
ent condition. The Stott partnership is
dissolved the same as that OF Strong
e. Co."
Receiver Edward A. Treat, when asked
about the Philadelphia dispatch TO bhe
effect that the liabilities of the house
of w. l.. Strong e. Co. might amount 10
So 100000, said that reports Of this kinu
were all guess work. He said the haoii-
tiles might not be one-half that. per 'aps
not one quarter.
The Herald tomorrow Will say; Along
with other developments in connection
with the affairs OF W. l.. strong 20
| yesterday came the report hat Mt,
Strong had become interested In mill
property and had invested heavily In the
Grlswold Worstcd company, limited, OF
Philadelphia. This concern was a manu-
facturer of worsted yarns and soid its
own goods. While mill property Is re
garded as a very undesirable asset for
dry goods commission house. 1t would
seem in view OF the fact that vadous
| members Of the Grisweh family had
obtained foreign attachments against
l.. Strong e. Co., with bail amounting y
1924, 100. that W. l.. Strong Co, Was
indebted TO the concern on note indorse-
mengs or otherwise, rather than on an,
merchandise account Wore such not
the case. lawyers were at a loss TO ex-
plain how the Philadelphia interests could
obtain an attachment levied In part upon
what Is apparently their own goods, Thie
attachment, II was announced late yester
day afternoon by Mr. Van Brunt OF But
Ter, hoffman, Joline & Minders. attorneys
for the receiver. had been Withdrawn.
The precise amount OF the claim. II wa
ssid was s162 .O50 and the bail raised the
| figures to double that amount. or S3Ri .l60
| No reason was assigned locally 20 ex-
ecnte the withdrawal OF the Attachment
unless II be. as was intinated by 1
friend OF the late Colonel Strong. to ths
fact that efforts we're being made to In
duee the varfo,,s credftors to refrain