County of Brant Public Library Digital Collections
Correspondence Relating to Mr. Cyrus Griffith's Share in Bell & Son Property
:


Description
Media Type:
Text
Item Type:
Documents
Description:
This correspondence relates to Mr. Cyrus Griffith of St. George, Ont., who owned a share of the Bell & Son Property.

The original document is held by the South Dumfries Historical Society.
Date of Original:
1933
Subject(s):
Local identifier:
2011SD047
Collection:
South Dumfries Historical Society
Language of Item:
English
Geographic Coverage:
  • Ontario, Canada
    Latitude: 43.2501 Longitude: -80.24966
Copyright Statement:
Copyright status unknown. Responsibility for determining the copyright status and any use rests exclusively with the user.
Recommended Citation:
Correspondence Relating to Mr. Syrus Griffith Share in Bell & Son Property, 1933. South Dumfries Historical Society.
Terms of Use:
The information and images provided are for personal research only and are not to be used for commercial purposes. Use of this information should include the credit "South Dumfries Historical Society."
Contact
County of Brant Public Library
Email
WWW address
Agency street/mail address

County of Brant Public Library (Paris Branch)
12 William Street
Paris, ON
N3L 1K7 | @brantlibrary

Full Text

Letterhead of BREWSTER & HEYD.

Dec. 4

Messrs. Gonant & Annis, Barristers, &c.,

OSHAWA, ONTARIO

Dear Sirs:

Re: B. Bell & Son Go. Ltd.

I did not see Mr, Bowling until to-day after receipt of your letter of the 1st inst. Certainly one cannot help doubting the expediency of accepting Mr. Lay for s proposition in times like these, It is impossible to put any real value on any property especially of this kind where it is not rented satisfactorily and where so much depends upon whether or not the Blue Company, which is the only industry near at, will be starting up again.

The cash payment of $1,000.00 is, of course, tempting, but, of course, we do not want to be stuck with unproductive property. Of course one may say that nothing, could be more gloomy than the outlook at St. George.

How would it be to refer this matter to Mr. George B. Patten, as he would be mainly interested after your clients legacy is provided for?

As to the disposition of the l,000.00 should it come to hand — There is |94.95 now owing for Insurance, the taxes are probably about §100.00, then there would be the costs, the Trustees fees, etc, and possibly a small commission. On putting this sale through it would not be expected, however, that these items, apart from the insurance and taxes would all have to be paid out of the Si,000,00, something could be left standing in the meantime.

The agreement says the Parties of the First Part shall pay taxes on St. George property, unless the purchaser exercises his option from which time he shall pay taxes.

Mr. Dow ling says Taylor has since called and wants an answer by Wednesday - Perhaps Patten will come down if you telephoned him.

Yours truly,

BREWSTER & HEYD,

Mr. Cyrus Griffith,

ST. GEORGE, Ont.

Dear Mr. Griffith:

Your letter of the 23rd instant which was preceded buy a letter from Mr. Muirhead is certainly not very re-assuring. If Cornell and some other person are willing to rent the garage, I think vie should make a bargain with them without a moments delay. In making such a bargain, however, it would be clearly understood and reduced that all moneys we receive from rental will simply be credited to Cornell on his agreement so that if he makes an assignment at any future time, we can still press for the payment of all that Cornell owes us under the agreement less this rental. May I suggest, therefore, that you employ Mr. Muirhead and try and get Cornell and the other man fixed up on a lease without delay. That ever terms may be in the ease, it should provide that upon the sale; of the property we could cancel the lease on 10 days notice.

If Cornell makes an assignment, will then have to decide what to do in the light of Cornell's assets and liabilities. If his estate is not likely to pay much, it.

September 25,

Mr. Cyrus Griffith might not he worth while claiming because we would have to value our security (the property) and could only rank for the balance. For the present I would strongly urge you to press for an arrangement with Cornell and the other man without delay and along the lines I have above outlined.

Respectfully yours, (GOJTANT)

COH&Hf AID AIMS

Slmcoe St. South

Oshawa, Ontario

Oct. 30. 1933.

Mr. John 3.

BRANTFORD Ontario.

Dew Sin He: B. Bell & Son. 8t. George - #14130

Replying to your favour of the 26th inst. I do not think there Is any responsibility on the part of Mr. Griffith or any other person to keep the property Insured or to incur any other outgoings, if titter are no funds or revenue with which to pay the same. Of course. It seems too bad to let the premises go uninsured but It is up to the parties In the agreement to put up the funds for that purpose. Under the trust agreement certain parties are entitled to the proceeds of the property in certain proportions. You have a copy of the agreement and know the proportions. I think these parties should be advised of the situation in writing and they should be asked If they will put up their proportion of the insurance. Our client Mrs. Dorothy Parrar, would believe. be disposed to pay her proportion of the Insurance. Unless, however the parties who are entitled to the proceeds will advance the insurance 11100 premium, w will simply have to drop it.

I do not think you could prosecute Cornell

on a criminal charge. here might be some basis for such a charge but the Court would never convict.

Incidentally, it occurs to me and if it is

not too late, we should appeal against the assessment on the property. She Township probably assesses about this time of the year and 1 suggest that you or Mr. Muirhead look after this at once and get an appeal entered. The fact that the property cannot be sold at all should be some basis of any argument that the place shoulu be assessed at a nominal mount only.

Respectfully yours.

{Sgd G. J}. Conant

tenant K.C. and Cyrus)

Dear Sir:

We have a party tore to-day who has been dickering with us for a deal to demolish the factory at St. George and has made the following price for the demolished material is $3.000 with six months time to clean it up, the terms to be $1.000. cash mid two double, brick. detached houses with first class roofs, situation in the suburbs of Brantford. at $1.000. each. These houses are in a fair state of repair and should rent fur $8. or 1 10t a month each. being the neighbourhood of one of the factories in the eastern suburbs of the City. She taxes9 being in the sum of $24.00 a year. In each double house. I know these properties and I think they cost to build l.1OO for each double house and have just been overhauled with new roofs and

She party would like to have an option of six

months to buy paying an extra $500. he would also take the land in St. George.

Would you give this matter your consideration at hear from you promptly as the offer is not being prolonged.

If Mr. Griffith is in town. we would be glad to go over the premises with him.

Yours very truly.

Mr. Griffith.

R. R. # 2«

ST. GEORGE, Ont.

Dear Mr. Griffith:

I have the letter from Mrs. Griffith this morning and have noted your decision, which, however, I must say is, I think, based upon misinformation. The bondholders are for protected regarding the bonds because they have nothing whatever registered against the property. The fact that Mr. F. K. Bell gave Mr. Patten some paper means nothing. Furthermore, from the fact that the $500.00 paid by Cornell has already vanished, I am extremely apprehensive that unless the bondholders have some registered claims against the title they may eventually get nothing.

I assure you that I had no intention of foisting myself upon you the other day but I realized very clearly that unless some person took hold of the matter and pressed persistently, we would never get it closed and the bondholders would never get anything. The only way the bondholders can be secured is by the conveyance of the property to some person having a substantial interest in the proceeds from the sale of the property, who would be bound to distribute the proceeds from the property. You being on the ground and also a substantial bondholder, it would seem logical that the title should be vested in you. It would appear from your letter that your chief.

CONANT AND ANNIS

Mr. G. Griffith

April 7, 1933

concern is in connection with my charges for the work that would be involved. It seems to be only proper that the work involved in getting the matter settled should come out of the fund because on any other basis, we would never get it closed. Furthermore, my clients would in any event bear a substantial part of it because the Martha Josephine Patten Estate and Dorothy Bell Patten are entitled to a very large percentage of the proceeds. However, I do not suppose anything will be accomplished by discussing it further and if your decision is final that you will not take the deed of the property, I am at a loss to suggest at this writing just what to do,

I called at the McColl-Frontenac Office in Toronto this week but Mr. French, of that firm who appears to have such matters in hand was away for the rest of the week, I expect to be in Toronto again next week and will call to see him if he is available.

Respectfully yours,

CONANT & ANNIS, per,

(G. K CONANT)

Brantfort, Ontario November 29, 1933.

Mr. (J. H. Muirhead, BRANTFORD, Ontario.

Dear Sir

At your request 1 have made an examination of the property described herein. Situate on the east side of the Locks 3oad, and estimate a fair market value of sixteen hundred dollars for each of these two houses.

This property is adjacent to Echo Place, a highly desirable residential suburb of the City of Brantford. and consists of two semi-detached, one and one half story white brick houses, each house occupying about one quarter acre of land.

She property Is within easy walking distance of the

Brantford and Hamilton highway, where bus service Is available to the City of Brantford, Schools, churches, stores and other necessary adjuncts are within easy walking distance.

Erie property Is contiguous to the Canada Glue Co., which is a large plant owned by American interests, aim which is not a nuisance in the neighbourhood, and they have always been really rented when business at the Glut Company was good. I understand that they have been rented for as much as fifteen dollars per month.

Each house is at present assessed »t six hundred dollars, the taxes being twenty-four dollars per annum. This assessment has been recently reduced to this amount.

The present owner has not placed my insurance upon them to date, but I find that they were previously Insured for eighteen hundred dollars each.

She property has been newly renovated, the present owner having put on new composition roofs, etc. She Interiours have been freshly painted and papered throughout.

The cellars are full with brick walls and earth floors. Here is a kitchen and living room on the main floor and two bedrooms on the second. There is also a back shed of frame construction at the rear of each house and a small verandah at the front. The water supply is obtained from outside wells. These houses should really rent for ten dollars a side under prevailing conditions, and when business Inaproves should rent for from twelve to fourteen dollars each side.

I am convinced that this estimate represents a fair

market value under present conditions, and under normal conditions would be considerably increased.

Respectfully submitted,

(Sgdj S. H. McQormick

Dear Mr, Griffith:

I have your letter of November 30 and note what you say. By the same mail I have a copy of letter signed by one E. H. MoCormiok and dated November 29 in which he purports to give a valuation on the Brantford houses. Frankly I do not know what to say about this, McCormick, the evaluator, values these houses at fl600,00 each or f3200,00 for the two houses, If they are worth this or even half this amount, it would not be too bad but I doubt if they are worth any such figure. On the other hand we are in a measure justified in closing the matter so far as our obligations under the agreement are concerned when we have what appears to be a competent valuation. There is also the more important and immediate question as to how the $1000,00 should be distributed, I am writing to Mr. Muirhead about this to-day and will write you further as soon as I get an answer.

Respectfully yours CONANT & ANMS

per,

(G. D. CONANT)

Mr, Cyrus Griffith,

R. R. f 2,

ST« GBORGE, Ont,

Dear Mr, Griffith:

I have your letter of the 2nd instant and note what you say. I am quite content for you to take the radiator for the sum you mention.

I can quite understand what you say about the Brantford houses, as I imagine conditions there are about the same as they are in Oshawa, I note that you have decided not to approve the sale at all so I presume that settles it, unless something further turns up.

Respectfully yours, CONAKT & JWNIS, per,

(G. D. CONAMT)

Mr. Cyrus Griffith,

H. R. r 2,

ST. GEORGE, Ont.

Dear Mr. Griffith:

I have a letter from Mr. Muirhead to-day, copy of which I enclose and I also enclose herewith copy of my reply thereto. I do not think we can do anything else than turn the scheme down under the circumstances. I am particularly more decided in

this on account of the indefiniteness as to what would become of the $1000,00. I can easily see that the $1000.00 would practically vanish into thin air. From our previous correspondence I presume that you will approve of this and take the same stand.

Respectfully yours, CONMT & ANNIS per,

(&. D. CONANT)

Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit




My favourites lets you save items you like, tag them and group them into collections for your own personal use. Viewing "My favourites" will open in a new tab. Login here or start a My favourites account.










Correspondence Relating to Mr. Cyrus Griffith's Share in Bell & Son Property


This correspondence relates to Mr. Cyrus Griffith of St. George, Ont., who owned a share of the Bell & Son Property.

The original document is held by the South Dumfries Historical Society.