New-York tribune., 1907-08-29
MIR. WARD BRINGS SUIT.
OYER SHERIDAN STATUE.
Sculptor Says Cumberland Society
Broke Contract 7Cith Him.

NAN
the Cumberland to recover 800 for alleged
breach of written contract for rejecting his
model Of an equestrian statue of General Philip
H. Sheridan.
AS told in The Tribune, the rejection of the
last and sixth model followed disagreement
between Mr. Ward and the Sheridan Statue
Commission in Washington. and has been at
tributed to Mrs. Sheridan, who expressed dis
satisfaction with it. Mr.. Ward. however, de-
clared that the model pleased the members OF
the Army of the Cumberland who saw it, and
that his contract with them and not with
Mrs Sheridan. who the model out of cour-
tesy Moreover. while Mrs. Sheridan at times
was satisfied with the model. at other times she
was not. and Mr.. Ward said he was afraid 1t
would have been impossible for him to please
her.
Tho defendants in the action comprise Colonel
John J. McCook. General Anson G. McCook'
General Horace Porter and General Henry L.
Burnett. of this city, and Brigadier General
Henry c. Hodges and Brigader General ROBERT
II. Hall. of Buffalo
Justice Brady. of the Supreme Court. yester-
day signed an order directing the service of the
summons and complaint by publication on the
following defendants, who are not residents Oh
this state: General Gates T. Thurston, PRESIDENT
of the Society of the Army of the Cumberland
Nashville, Tenn; Captain Webster j. Colourr'
Chattanooga. Tenn; Orlando A. Somers. hoko-
mo- Ind: General Franklin G.. Smith, Cleveland
Park D. c.; General Henry c. Corbin Chevy
Chase, Md; Major William II. Lambert, Ger
mantown. Penn; General Charles F. Mander-
son. Omaha; General James H. Wilson, Will
mington Del: General Michael V. Sheridan,
brother of General Sheridan, Washington; ex-
Congressman and General Charles H GrosVenor,
Athens, Ohio; Smith D. Atkins. Freeport Ill;
General Judson w Bishop st. Paul; Cap
tain Patrick H. Dow1ing. Toledo; Colonel
Perrin V. Fox. Grand Rapids. Mich: Cen
eral James W. Forsyth. Columbus, Ohio; Colonel
Gilbert C. Kniffen Takoma Park u c.: General
John G. Parkhurst. Coldwater Mich; General
Samuel W. Price. Washington; Lieutenant John
Ruhm, Nashville Tenn, and Colonel Alexander
F. Stevenson. Chicago
Brgadier General Darius B. Warner. st. John.
n. b: Colonel Andrew w. Wills, Nashville
Tenn: Brigadier General Frederick c. Wnker,
Milwaukee: General Thomas ]. Wood. Dayton,
Ohio; Captain Charles F. Miller. Philadelphia.
and Colonel William r. WarnoCk, Urbana. Ohio
The complaint alleges that all the defendants
are were at the making of the contract mem
bers OF the Society of the Army of the Cumher-
land and all served in the Civil War and in that
part of the Union army known the Army OF
the Cumberland. The society is an unincorpo-
rated association, having no regular place OF
business but holding regular meetings once a
year or oftener in various cities and states The
defendants on May %, 1892 as stated in the
complaint. under the name OF the society and
acting through a committee authorized to rep
resent them made a contract with the plalntir
by which he agreed to model and complete in
bronze an equestrian statue of General Sheridan.
in substantial accordance with design thereto
fore submitted to and accepted by the defend
ants. The statue was 10 be delivered 10 the
defendants on or before July /. 1898. in Wash
ington where the latter should erect a pedestal
upon which to place the statue.
They agreed to pay Mr.. Ward for the statue
upon its delivery $50 O0O less So 800 paid the
execution of the contract. II is alleged that,
with knowledge that the plaintiff had not COM
neted the statue on July /. 1898. that he was at
that time and thereafter and until January .,
1907 working upon the statue and the prellnl-
mary model therefor. the defendants did not IN
sist on the completion or the delivery Of the
statue on July /. 1898 and did not erect pedes-
tai for it. Subsequent to that date, 1t Is alleged
the defendants requested the plantif to proceed
with the work and expense of the statue, and
from time to time expressed satisfaction ana ap-
,roval of the work and the progress the plain
,to was making and furnished him with various
articles to be used as models in making the
statue.
Y is alleged that the defendants delayed the
plaintiffs work upon the statue from uIne 10
time by requesting him to make certain changes
in the statue as he was modelling IT, and to delay
work until they and their representatives coud
examine 1t and give their approval or make
suggestions as to changes. With these requests
Mr. Ward complied, whereby the defendants
waived the condition of the contract requiring
the completion and delivery OF the statue on
or before July l, 1898, and extended the time
for him 10 complete and deliver it for rea-
sonabIe period OF time subsequent to January
3. 1907
The plafntiY alleges that after the making
of the contract, with much labor and with
great expense, carefully. faithfully, and accord
ing to the best and highest requirements of art"
he modelled the statue in substantial accord
ance with design approved by the defendants.
This design. the plaintiff alleges, was sub
stantially ready for enlargement and the cast
| ing therefrom OF a bronze statue when. about
| June 2G 1906. and January 3, 1907, and before
the expiration of a reasonable time entirely to
complete the statue the defendants gave notice
| to the plaintiff that they would not receive or
| accept the statue.
| The defendants did not erect a pedestal for
! the statue, and, as alleged, have abandoned
| their contract and have ever since wholly
! failed to perform the same. The PLAINTIFF
states that he was ready and willing to per-
| form the contract his part. and would have
! delivered the statue within the time specified
/ and extended except for the defendants
| fusaI Mr. Ward alleges that he made certain
/ changes from the model accepted by the de-
| PENDANTS in the pose of the figures and the
| design Of the statue, all of which changes
! were made with the knowledge approval and
| consent and at the request of the defendants;
| that IL the statue not made in substantial
| accordance with the accepted design it was be-
| cause of the changes desired and the statue
| differed from the accepted model only to the