Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-05-17
CASE INVOLVES LARGEST SUM
ON CONTRACT EVER HEARD
IN IOWA COURTS.
CLEVELAND AUTO SUPPLY
CONCERN is PLAINTIFF
Begins Action TO Force Collection for
Parts Sold to Waterloo Auto Makers
Which Purchasers Claim Were De-
feetive-Great Array of Legal Talent
Other State News.

Waterloo Nav 17.-What is probably
the largest suit en- a contract ever tried
in Iowa, is now being thrashed out be-
Not only Is the suit remarkable for the
amount involved. something over $780,
600. but the array of legal talent on
both sides is among the most brilliant
ever assembled to try a single case IN
the state.
The action Is that OF the American
Balibearings Company Of Cleveland.
o.. against the Mason Motor Company
of Waterloo. and is the outgrowth OF
a dispute over a contract for 1000 sets
Of axes for four cylinder automobiles.
The plaintiff company IS represented
by Judge c. f. Ransier ard his legal
partner Alfred Longlev. Of This city.
and Attorney Stewart of Cleveland. AT
torney Andrews. also OF Cleveland, VINO
is the plaintiff company's counsel. 10
here but as ne is an important witness
in the case he is taking no part as a
lawyer On the other hand the defend
ants are represented by former Senator
w. e Mason Of Illinois. F. r. DaWley
of Cedar Rapids. former Congressman
Charles F. Pickett. John Z. Williams.
and E. F. Swisher, all of Waterloo; c.
o. McLain of Newton. ard Glen Brown.
OF Dubuque.
History Of the Case.
The history Of the case is suhstan-
tally as follows: In October. 1909. be-
fore the Mavta G. Mason Motor Com
panv moved from Des Moines 10 Wat
erloe bu, after they had concluded 70
do so. Senator Maytag, then the head
of the company. made a written con-
tract with the Cleveland company for
1000 sets Of axles for four cylinder
cars. On account OF delay in getting
motors and frames, the company. after
they moved here, could not use the
axles until May 1910.
The first cars turned out with these
axles resulted In trouble with the
axles. The same trouble. declare the
defendants existed with many cars.
the front spindle breaking and letting
the car down. This resulted in dam
aging the reputation OF the cars. claim
the defendants. and the company was
unable to make sales on account OF
the axle difficulty.
After the defects were discovered,
further declare the defendants. two car
loads Of axles. that had been shipped
here were refused on account Of the
defects m entioned. Further on account
&c the company's not being able to sell
their cars because of the axles. they
were unable to Pay for the ones re-
oeived.
Up to that time there had been
shipped 10 the company sos rear axles,
about 40 Of which We're in the hands
of the railroad here. the company re-
fusing about $50 OF the 1000 sets which
had not been shipped or constructed.
Claims Settlement Was Made.
In October, 1910. declare the defend
ants, aSsettlement or new agreement
was made under which the motor
company received the 4aaxles on the
track. the ballhearings company agree
ing so 1t Is claimed, that If the de-
PENDANTS would accept these ax!es they
would furnish the necessary hubs.
drums and front axles to make a COM
plete $50 sets
On these conditions and the giving
OF additional security the Mason COM
pany go 1t claims. was not to be re-
quired to take any more OF the axles
Subsequently. however. claim the de-
PENDANTS. trouble developed with the
rear axles IN go many cases that the
Mason company insisted they would
accept no more of them and so notified
the Cleveland concern. More than 40
per cent OF the axles had proven de-
fectfve claim the Waterloo company,
and the reputation of the Mason car
had suffered so severely that II was
next to Impossible to sell the output OF
the factorr.
At the time the new agreement or
settlement was made, on the basis Of
$50 sets Of axles delivered notes ware
given for the balance due The present
suit is based on these notes and for
damages for failure TO accept the $50
sets undelivered under the original
contract.