The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1906-03-30
WEBBING CO. s
CASE IS HEARD
ON EXCEPTIONS

NUDTFITF TUWTN
argued several exceptions to the MASTER s
report on claims against the American
rubin and Webbing company. Hon. G.
FRANK Parkhurst, now member or the
| court. but who, OF course. did not sit
today, was the master.
John G.. Milburn OF New York city and
Buffalo. in whose home the late Presi-
dent Mckinley died, was introduced TO
the court by Seeber Edwards OF Edwards
Angel who. with John A Tillinghast.
are counsel for Maurice II. Cooke and
other creditors.
Daniel Leroy Dresser. senior member
OF Dresser & Co, of New York. was the
owner of the controlling interest I'm the
American Tubing and Webbing company,
Rhode Island corporation. which I'm 1901
was consolidated with the Narragansett
and the National companies and It's capi-
tai stock largely increased.
This consolidation was financed by
Dresser Co. VIII. IL Is claimed, loaned
It's cash and credit TO the Webbing com
pany
When Dresser g. Co failed there were
outs tandng interchanged drafts OF which
the corporation had the exclusive benefit
In excess OF $l35,oO0. and of the drafts
of which Dresser & Co. had received the
benefit amounting TO sl9l 600.
Rathbone Gardner. In behalf OF coun-
sci for the master. stated that the mas
ter had divided the contested claims into
CD Accommodation drafts. CD Manu-
facturers' Commercial company "a
Commonwealth Trust company. Numer-
Gus exceptions had been filed TO the ac-
ton or the master in regard to the last
three classes
As there were go pages Of briefs filed by
counsel for the several parties in interest
over 200 exhibits, and about 1900 pages OF
testimony. Mr.. Gardner asked leave to
make his answer when all the objections
were presented
Counsel for the parties bringing up the
exceptions did not object TO this course
and Mr.. Milburn began his argument
Mr.. Milburn insisted that corporations
today must be governed by circumstances
or business. The master had decided that
the 'nsolvcnt tubing company, being
manufacturing corporation. had no power
to make accommodation paper. This de-
cision Mr.. Milburn made the chief point
of his attack
He argued that the claimants he repre-
sented did what simply amounted to an
excnange or commercial paper for the
mutual assistance OF both concerns.
Mr. Milburn's clients and the amount OF
thelr claims are. Manhattan company,
6.S9, Brown Bros. & Co OF New York
No,VD; Mercantile National bank. sos 562 1O
National Park bank $1,000: United Ma
uonal bank of Newark. $4,000: Tmporters
and Traders National bank, SO 900. Ma
uonal Bank Of Pottstown The total
amount OF these claims is slll.52S 40
some 15 exceptlnos were taken by these
banks TO the masters report but they
may he all included i'm thse four state
ments:
Error In holding that the drafts sought
10 he proved are governed by the laws OF
New York; error in holding that the
drafts sought to be proved are accommo-
dation drafts; error In holding that there
was not sufficient proof OF the alleged
custom OF banks to discount drafts az
this kind for commission houses on their
own aceptances and for their own ac-
count, and even though such custom was
sufficiently established, IL could not be in
voked because IL is contrary To law; error
in holding that the American Tubing e.
webbing company, although a manufact-
uring corporation, did not have the right
under the circumstances OF this case to
draw the drafts in question for the ac-
commodation or the commission house
The stockholders I'm the American Tub
ing & Webbing company and the number
or shares held were: ID. Leroy Dresser
1il2 shares; Alfred Caldwell. 654 shares;
James M Ripley. 1872 shares: Lorin M
Maurice III. Cook, six shares and Narra-
gansett Web company, $50 shares: total
2760 shares
Richard f. Lyman and Cardozo & Ma
than appeared for the American Exchange
bank, which claims that three drafts for
5000 each should be paid These drafts
were received from Mr. Dresser person
ally and this bank had no interest i'm or
dealing with the firm OF Dressler e. Co,
and also by its president. 1t is claimed
the Webbing company got no value from
the drafts
Counsel for the receivers were Gardi-
ner. Pirce a. Thornley, and Comstock &
Canning; and they argued that the mas
ter's report was clearly correct I'm It's
findings as to law and facts
Owing to the importance OF tho excep-
tions. they were certified by the superior
court to the supreme court.
Broadly stated. the proposition chiefly
argued today was that IT was as neces-
sary for corporations engaged in manu-
featuring to raise money by drafts as il
was 20 have suitable machinery for manu-
featuring products.
Robert w. Burbank OF this city and
Mr. Sheffield OF New York appeared for
the Manufacturers Commercial company
proceeds OF a check given the American
Tubing and Webbing company and paid
in the usual course Of business This
Republic and the amount, IL is claimed,
credited to the tubing and webbing COM
pany. The receivers Of the latter COM
pany say that the money never I'm fact
reached the defendant company.
An important finding OF the master was
that the webbing company received no
consideration at all for the drafts given
by Dresser & Co. This Ia disputed by
those taking exceptions. who hoh that the
master was mistaken in so finding and
also In finding that the drafts werc taken
such n way as the custom OF business in
New York justified
Robert u. Murray of New York, repre-
senting certain creditors whose claims had
been allowed by the master, appeared
with counsel for receivers, against the
allowance of the claims rejected by the
master.