Paragraph 27 is a mystery to me. It states that "alleged" company assets were only $119,568, and that actually they were $657,446,49. Where the $119,568 number came from I can only guess that it was from the pre-bankruptcy audit performed by the Baldwin accountants. A newspaper article stated that Whitcomb had been audited in February, 1931 prior to the bankruptcy. Perhaps this number was used to convince Mr. Work that his $95,000 of bonds would never get paid back unless Baldwin took over.
Paragraph 29 has its own question. Stockholders were W. Whitcomb, Baldwin, and Carl Heim. Heim by this time was in hiding. He couldn't have voted unless by proxi. Yet the stockholder resolution passed that condemned the board of directors actions.
Paragraph 32 states that Baldwin then created the new "Whitcomb Locomotive Company" on April 7, 1931 incorporated in Delaware. On April 10th, 1931 the new corporation got a license to operate in Illinois.
Paragraph 36 states that on April 13, 1931 that "Whitcomb Locomotive Company" bought up the "George D. Whitcomb Company". Baldwin filed a counter petition in the bankruptcy docket to allow the bankruptcy to proceed. Apparently the court agreed not to stop the proceedings. The conspiracy suit was beyond the scope of the bankruptcy court.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitcomb_Locomotive_Works This article has no citation for this statement and it obviously is in error. As soon as I have some more information from the Chicago suit, I will edit the Wiki article complete with court case citations. Steve
Today I phoned the Clerks' office of the Circuit Court for Cook County in Chicago and requested the William C. Whitcomb suit against Baldwin Case #34C 1936 filed February 14, 1934. According to the Baldwin response to the W. Whitcomb petition to intervene, that Cook County case was dismissed on May 16, 1935. http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=RecArchivePage&RecArchivePage=6000 The Clek's office said it should have it ready by next Monday. The same Baldwin petition then refers to a later suit filed by W. Whitcomb in Federal court in Philadelphia against Baldwin. I have no date nor case number for that Federal suit. Will worry about that after the Cook County suit is available and I have searched it. Steve
I had no idea that all of this had happened. I assumed it was a simple matter of a small locomotive builder going bankrupt because of poor business during the Great Depression. Never, never assume . . . Steve
This is certainly all new for me. While I do know things such as this did, (and still do), happen, I had not the slightest hint it was involved here.
I haven't searched the local newspapers on microfilm to see if they were aware of this suit against Baldwin. This all takes time to go through. Paragraph 14 of the Baldwin petition to the bankruptcy court asking the court to ignore the Whitcomb petititon states the date and case number of W. Whitcomb's suit.
My mistake. The Cook County circuit court REFUSED Baldwin's petition to dismiss the Whitcomb suit on May 13, 1935. Also, it appears that Baldwin petitioned the Federal court in Pennsylvania to dismiss any suit brought against Baldwin relating to the Whitcomb case. Steve
In paragraph 15, the petititon states that W. Whitcomb is suing Baldwin for the money that his stock was worth when the company was sold. It appears that W. Whitcomb had no ambitions to regain control of his company. Steve
In paragraph 20 seen above, Baldwin states that W. Whitcomb filed a claim in the United States District Court in Pennsylvania. The Cause (case) No. 18519 must be W. Whitcomb's suit in the Pennsylvania Federal court and it must have been filed by February 25, 1935. I will see if I can request that case. Steve
Here are photos I took this evening of the vacant Whitcomb factory - last occupied by PBM precast concrete. This is from the south west corner of the plant. Steve
Like a lot of other industrial ruins around the U.S. this building may be torn down. It is now owned by Behr recyclers and they wish to turn the property into a metal recycling center but the city isn't sure if the building is safe for public use. http://www.jbehr.com/ Steve
Another view. If you go to google map and street view you still see the entire crane there. That is dated from fall 2007.