|
New York Sun, January 14, 1894
W. E. D. Stokes is in litigation so frequently that the headline, “W. E. D. Stokes Sues” has become thoroughly familiar to the public.
He is one of the most active business men in New York, yet apparently he has no regular office hours. He drives a little roundabout, which is a development of the old-fashioned buggy, and rushes from his real estate business on the west side of town, above 72nd Street, down to his dry goods business, and from one hotel to another all day long.
He is thin, has rather prominent teeth, a mustache which is close-clipped and of no particular color, is nearly always dressed in a business suit, and fights lawyers as cheerfully as his other opponents.
The long-standing quarrel between W. E. D. Stokes and his cousin, Edward Stokes, will probably never be healed, as it is now announced that they will bid against each other at the auction sale of the Hoffman House. |
|
- At least half of W. E. D. Stokes' many legal battles were titled "Stokes vs. Stokes," because in addition to his courtroom tussles with his cousin, Edward, and his second wife, Helen, he also sued or was sued by his brothers Anson and Thomas. And for W. E. D. Stokes, it seemed no issue — or amount of money — was too petty to warrant a visit to a lawyer on his ever-changing roster of law firms. Perhaps there was method to his madness ... perhaps there was only madness.
Here's a sampling of cases that occupied Stokes' attention and time, and led to huge legal fees he usually didn't willingly pay, which led to more lawsuits. |
New York World, November 29, 1890
W. E. D. Stokes is the plaintiff in a lawsuit now pending before the Supreme Court, which came up before Judge Lawrence yesterday. It arises out of an effort which he claims has been made on the part of his brother, Anson Phelps Stokes, to prevent the carrying out of their father’s intentions. The amount involved is said to be in the neighborhood of $250,000, and when the case comes to trial it is likely to reveal dissensions in the already complicated affairs of the Phelps, Stokes and Dodge families.
|
|
W. E. D. Stokes' lawsuit claimed brother Anson kept him out of the firm of Phelps, Stokes & Com. Anson believed his younger brother had no commercial ability and would not make a business man.
At this point — in 1890 — W. E. D. Stokes seemed to be proving Anson wrong, although W. E. D. may have peaked in 1890. His legal battles with cousin Edward S. Stokes were coming up, as well as his first marriage.
Years later he would complain that his second wife married him only for his money, but wife number one was far more expensive, starting with the Kentucky horse farm he purchased to impress her, plus the expenses involved during a few summers spent mingling with the rich in Newport, Maine and the Adirondacks.
But perhaps it was his dislike and jealousy of cousin Edward that drove W. E. D. Stokes to make what may have been his poorest investment — the building of an apartment hotel he hoped would be more famous than the Hoffman House, which became the main issue in the feud with his cousin. |
New York World, December 30, 1892
The feeling Edward S. Stokes and W. E. D. Stokes entertain for each other is like that of two tenor singers in the same opera company. Each says it is a disgrace the other is his cousin. For two years their hatred has been growing, and with it lawsuits and literature in the nature of complaints and appeals.
Yesterday people who read newspapers learned that W. E. D. Stokes had applied to the Court for the appointment of a receiver for the Hoffman House Company. In the complaint, W. E. D. Stokes charged Edward S. Stokes with many things which made the cousin with snowy hair boil with rage.
Edward S. said every statement made by W. E. D. was an infamous lie and that W. E. D. was a blackguard.
So cousin Edward went to his lawyers, Guggenheimer & Untermeyer, and told them to bring suit against cousin William for slander and libel. Cousin Edward thought he had been damaged about $250,000 worth.
Then he went back to look after the Hoffman House, but even after he had taken the preliminary steps toward making cousin William suffer, cousin Edward’s wrath did not cool. The reason was the reference to the Fisk killing which appears in the complaint.
Then there was also an anonymous letter. There is nothing in this world cousin Edward is so sensitive about as any reference to that matter. The letter is typewritten, dated November 18, 1892. It reads:
Dear Sir: Do you want some sound advice? If so, I will tell you confidentially unless you come to terms with W. E. D. Stokes this coming week, he intends to publish a true account of the murder of James Fisk Jr., written by a New York lawyer who witnessed the murder, and you may also depend upon it that he will publish all about your political pull and all your relationships with prominent people. All of which will be very interesting reading to the general public, but I fear it will ruin you. Artemus H. Holmes, I have reason to think, could arrange a settlement for you, and if you take my advice, you will not delay it.
A friend. |
Cousin Edward has no doubt that cousin William sent him that letter to try and force him to an unjust settlement. He has received other threatening letters of the same kind, and he is sure they came from cousin William.
There are already two libel suits pending against Edward S. Stokes which have grown out of the trouble between the two cousins. |
|
| W. R. Martin, who represented W. E. D. Stokes, said it was more likely the anonymous letter was the work of Edward Stokes.
Artemus H. Holmes, whose name was mentioned in the letter, was the senior member of the firm of Holmes & Adams. They were W. E. D. Stokes’ lawyers.
Holmes told the press that the differences between the two cousins were simple.
“Edward S. Stokes has gotten into W. E. D. Stokes for about $100,000. On the face of it, this was legitimate enough. W. E. D. Stokes became a large shareholder in the stock of the Hoffman House Company. He began to inquire into the way things were done. Edward S. Stokes didn’t like this, and he told W. E. D. so in polite terms. That made W. E. D. angry, and he decided to bring suit and make Edward S. account for what he had done. It is is just like a suit between partner4s who disagree, and one claims the other has exceeded his authority. Then they call upon the courts to settle the matter.” |
New York Herald, December 23, 1893
Hotter and hotter grows the row between the Stokes cousins, with the Hoffman House as the visible bone of contention.
With an imposing array of legal talent, the case was brought up before Vice Chancellor Green in Jersey City yesterday, where W. E. D. Stokes petitioned for an order directing Edward S. Stokes, newly appointed receiver for the Hoffman House property, to produce the books of the hotel for inspection.
It was so ordered by Vice Chancellor Green.
Said William R. Martin, confidential friend and attorney for W. E. D. Stokes, “Yes, we triumphed in today’s proceedings, and now fee assured of ousting Mister Edward. He is a desperate man, however, and no one can tell what may happen before the struggle is over ... He has twice within the last three weeks sent threatening messages to Mr. Stokes. Twice. This man has threatened assassination. But we don’t fear him.”
Edward Stokes, when seen last night at the Hoffman House, laughed heartily over Mr. Martin’s statement and pronounced it an unqualified falsehood.
“Why, I would not ever pull the long nose of my estimable cousin. He is absolutely safe, and the fears of his imaginative friend, Lawyer Mr. Martin, are totally groundless.” |
|
| Eventually, Edward Stokes and his lawyers outmaneuvered his cousin, grabbing control of the Hoffman House and squeezing cousin W. E. D. out of the business completely. And in 1898, Edward Stokes sold his interest in the hotel, making him very rich, quite an accomplishment considering he was broke when he was released from prison in 1876. |
New York Sun, January 13, 1894
The law firm of Richards & Heald, for work done by its senior member, George Richards, has brought action in the Supreme Court to recover $77,600 from William E. D. Stokes. The services were rendered chiefly in connection with the estate of W. E. D. Stokes’s father, James Stokes, of the firm of Phelps, Stokes & Co., who on his death on Aug. 1, 1881, left about $7,000,000.
Richards avers that his work was largely in regard to certain transfers of property made by James Stokes to the defendant when the father was “considered enfeebled and broken in body and mental health” and that during that period the defendant “had the care in great measure of his father’s papers and property matter, and to some extent the care and keeping of his books of account.”
It is declared that the brothers and sisters of the defendant charged him with fraud and undue influence in connection with the affairs of his father. |
|
New York Press, May 3, 1894
The Sheriff’s jury yesterday assessed the damages which Edward S. Stokes sustained from the libelous letter of W. E. D. Stokes at $1,000. Mr. Stokes sued for $250,000. Edward S. Stokes expected a large verdict and looked extremely angry when the verdict was announced. |
|
| In April, 1895, Stokes was found in contempt of the New York City Supreme Court for refusing to pay a tax of $464.46 on $25,000 worth of stock. |
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 21, 1895
W. E. D. Stokes was fined $100 today by Judge Barrett in the New York Supreme Court for failing to appear and serve as a juror on October 7. Mr. Stokes sent a letter to the court at the time, stating that he was unable to be on hand as he had met with an injury. This, however, was not considered sufficient to excuse him from jury duty, as the law contemplates a personal appearance. |
|
In 1901, after the death of Edward S. Stokes, W. E. D. Stokes went to court to prove he was included in his cousin's will. Turned out there were two wills, one written in 1891, the other in 1894, after the squabbling between cousins had gotten nasty. W. E. D. was executor of the first will; he wasn't mentioned in the second.
This legal battle, in typical Stokesian fashion, became tangled in almost comic fashion. Or it would have seemed comic were if not for the fact there were two deaths involved, the second one being Edward Stokes's mother, who was the sole beneficiary under the 1894 will, which was ruled valid and superseded the earlier will. That left W. E. D. Stokes out of the matter, despite his claims that he and cousin Edward had reconciled while the latter was on his deathbed.
Anyway, because Nancy Stokes died a few weeks after her son Edward passed away, and because her will named him as her sole beneficiary, everything became part of his estate, which was divided among two children she did not mention in her will — son, Horace Stokes, and her daughter, Mrs. Mary Jane MacNutt.
One further complication was Edward's decision to drop W. E. D. Stokes as executor and name Elizur V. Foote and James D. Leary instead. Except that after making the will, Edward Stokes and Leary became opponents in a lawsuit, and Mrs. MacNutt was successful in efforts to have Leary's name removed from the will. It seems nothing was ever simple in the Stokes family.
By this time W. E. D. Stokes had problems elsewhere: |
New York Times, August 26, 1902
W. E. D. Stokes, owner of the new Ansonia Apartment Hotel, on Broadway, between Seventy-fourth and Seventy-fifth Streets, now nearing completion, has been in trouble over the matter of a sidewalk in front of the big building.
For some time he had wanted to have a sidewalk laid, but his contractor demurred and said that the work had not reached a stage where a sidewalk would not interfere with the construction work. Mr. Stokes finally prevailed upon his contractor to finish the walk.
Mr. Stokes discovered yesterday morning that subway workmen had torn up portions of the walk. He ascertained that John Ahearn of 300 East 71st Street, a rapid transit subway foreman, had given the order, and had him arrested.
Ahearn was taken at once to the West Side Court and arraigned before Magistrate Mott. Ahearn showed papers which appeared to justify his action and Magistrate Mott refused to allow a complaint to be drawn against him, advising Mr. Stokes to go to a civil court for redress. |
|
A New York Herald story nine months later (May 18, 1903) was devoted to the effect labor unions was having on city builders.
"As an example of what union labor in New York can do to retard building and to cause loss to owners and contractors, the big builders cite the case of the Ansonia apartment house, at Broadway and 72nd Street.
"It should be explained, however, that this is an extreme case. The hiring of men was done by W. E. D. Stokes, the owner, and being unfamiliar with the ways of the unions in the building trades, probably became involved in more disputes, it is said, than a contractor would have brought upon himself.
"The completion of this gigantic apartment hotel was delayed a year and a half, and Mr. Stokes, it is estimated, sustained a loss of from $900,000 to $1 million."
But W. E. D. Stokes also took the time to sweat the small stuff: |
New York Times, September 25, 1902
W. E. D. Stokes walked into the Tenth District Municipal Court yesterday carrying a big bundle of boots and shoes under his arm, on account of which was was being sued for $75.45 by James Slater, a shoemaker of 1121 Broadway.
Mr. Stokes refused to pay for the footwear, some of which had been delivered four years ago, because he said they hurt his feet.
Two items in the bill, shoelaces at 5 cents a pair and shoe polish amounting to 65 cents, Mr. Stokes made no objection to. In accordance with agreement by counsel the hearing was set for Oct. 2. |
|
| Edward Stokes was dead, his will was settled, but W. E. D. Stokes was still going after his late cousin, this time successfully: |
New York Herald, November 29, 1902
Judgment was given yesterday in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for $64,491 in favor of W. E. D. Stokes against his cousin, Edward S. Stokes. The suit was begun prior to the latter’s death.
On June 14, 1899, the lower court gave judgment in the same case of $50,969. W. E. D. Stokes had sued to recover on promissory notes, as collateral security for which Edward S. had given $125,000 in Hoffman House bonds and $30,000 in United Lines Telegraph Company.
Edward S. Stokes alleged a tender of the amount due in 1892, but W. E. D. Stokes demanded the right to retain the securities for other obligations. The judgment of the lower court has been somewhat increased in addition to the accruing interest. |
|
Whether W. E. D. Stokes actually received the money, I do not know. And even if he did, he might have been forced to use that money to pay someone else who had beaten him in court.
Stokes actually was a licensed lawyer, though he only practiced a couple of times in his own behalf on occasions he just didn't feel like hiring one. Thing is, he didn't like lawyers and felt they overcharged him, but recognized he couldn't do the job as well as he could.
A significant percentage of the lawsuits in which Stokes was involved stemmed from his refusal to pay the bills he was sent, not matter how small. He even begrudged a law clerk he had hired to do a bit of detective work: |
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 5, 1907
W. E. D. Stokes, proprietor of the Ansonia Hotel, in Manhattan, who was recently sued in the Supreme Court by Lucy M. Randolph for $1,000 a month for the support of herself and child, was a defendant this morning in Municipal Court, in Long Island City.
The proceeding was an echo of the case disposed of a couple of months ago by the higher court. It appears that during the preparations to defend the suit instituted by the woman, Stokes left no stone unturned to strengthen his case.
On his behalf Thomas F. Rogers, a law clerk residing in Long Island City, was employed to do detective work. Rogers’ period of employment was from June 15 to July 7, and after he had rendered the service he was employed to perform, he presented to Mr. Stokes a bill for $35.
The bill was promptly repudiated and Rogers decided to bring a suit to compel payment. The case came up this morning before Judge William J. Rasquin. Abe Gruber, who successfully defended the Randolph suit against Stokes, appeared in person in the Long Island City court and confessing judgment paid into the court $55, which amount represents the sum sued for and $20 costs. |
|
| Stokes also refused to let go of old matters. Were he alive today, and a registered Democrat (which is doubtful), he'd still be trying to get Al Gore proclaimed President. |
New York Sun, April 24, 1908
A suit begun twenty-two years ago by W. E. D. Stokes as trustee of the Phelps Mission to restrain and enjoin a merger of the mission with the 86st Street Park Presbyterian Church was dismissed yesterday by Justice Fitzgerald in the Supreme Court.
Among the defendants when the suit was begun were Henry Dale and Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, who were also trustees of the mission.
The Phelps Mission was established by the heirs, including both children and grandchildren of Anson G. Phelps and was managed and controlled by these heirs and next of kin for many years. The work of the mission became so onerous, however, says Justice Fitzgerald, that steps became necessary for a more permanent plan of administration, and on October 13, 1886, the trustees at a special meeting passed a resolution favoring a consolidation of the mission with the Park Presbyterian Church.
All but Mr. Stokes approved the resolution, and he began his suit on November 2, 1886. The Park Presbyterian Church has managed the affairs of the mission which is at 314 East 35th street, ever since 1886, and has collected and expended almost $100,000 for the mission.
There being no allegations of fraud or collusion in the complaint of Mr. Stokes, Justice Fitzgerald says the suit is groundless and must be dismissed. |
|
| In 1911 Stokes won a suit against actress Valeska Suratt for three months' rent she owed on a home she rented from him on West 85th Street. Here are some of the other legal battles he faced: |
New York Sun, June 19, 1912
On the ground that W. E. D. Stokes had left the state to avoid service in a suit for damages, Supreme Court Justice Gavegan granted an order yesterday to serve Stokes by publication at his country place at Coleman, Ky., in an action for $75,000 damages brought by Alma J. Benson, through her father, Henry B. Benson, ad guardian ad litem.
The complaint alleges that the child was knocked down at 66th Street and Broadway on June 30 by Stokes’s auto and that Stokes left the city immediately afterward. His counsel refused to accept service of the papers. |
|
| |
New York Evening Telegram, June 23, 1919
W. E. D. Stokes, owner of the Ansonia Hotel, obtained from Supreme Court Justice Thomas F. Donnelly today an order requiring the Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments to certify to the Court their ground for placing valuations aggregating $1,705,500 on forty-three pieces of property owned by him and located at No. 2633 Broadway and on West 54th, 72nd. 73rd, 75th, 76th, 78th and 89th streets, and West End avenue.
Mr. Stokes declares that the valuations should total only $1,288,500. |
|
| |
Buffalo Express, January 7, 1921
W. E. D. Stokes, New York millionaire and owner of the Hotel Ansonia, is a defendant in Justice Pooley’s part in Supreme Court in an action brought by Mark Harris against Stokes, as the endorser, and William G. Eakins, the maker, of notes amounting to $10,000. Harris seeks to recover the money which he loaned on the notes.
Stokes and Eakins seek to avoid payment, setting up usury as a defense. They claim that, in addition to 40,000 shares of stock in a Kentucky company which they put up as collateral security for the notes, they were forced to give 10,000 shares of stock to Harris, in addition to the legal rate of interest.
Mr. Harris asserts that the entire 50,000 shares of stock were given to him as security on the note. |
|
In October, 1923, while awaiting the start of his second divorce trial, Stokes appeared in a Brooklyn court in connection with a suit for $4,844.75 against the estate of the late Mrs. Grace Strachan Forsythe. The lawsuit was brought by the Mervyn Realty Company, which was owned by Stokes.
It was akin to the 1911 Valeska Suratt case, which involved overdue rent. In this matter Mrs. Forsythe allegedly had guaranteed payment by her sister, Mrs. Ann G. Cronin, of the rent on houses on West 72nd Street in 1919. (Mrs. Forsythe was an interesting woman, the district superintendent of schools who was responsible for insuring that men and women school teachers received equal pay.)
A year later Stokes was sued by two of his lawyers. |
New York Evening Post, May 10, 1924
Supreme Court Justice Carswell in Brooklyn today denied a motion recently made by counsel to W. E. D. Stokes, millionaire hotel owner, seeking to have stricken out certain “irrelevant and scandalous matter” from the complaint made by Daniel F. Nugent and John A. Nugent, lawyers, in their suit to get from Stokes $63,000 alleged to be due them for legal services.
The Nugents were employed by Stokes as counsel in his recent unsuccessful divorce action against Mrs. Helen Ellwood Stokes, Daniel F. Nugent was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in Chicago on a charge of conspiracy in connection with that action. |
|
| |
New York Times, June 17, 1925
A judgment for $5,478 was filed in the Supreme Court yesterday against W. E. D. Stokes in favor of Ives & Keating, attorneys of Danbury, Connecticut, as a result of a verdict of a jury before Justice Davis.
The lawyers sued for $13,051, alleged that in 1922 and 1923 they rendered services to Mr. Stokes in interviewing witnesses and obtaining evidence for use inn his divorce suit against his wife. They claimed $15,000 for their services and $751 disbursements, and asserted only $2,700 was paid. Stokes contended that the lawyers had received full payment for all they did.
Trial of an action for $5,000 alleged to be due for legal services was begun yesterday before Federal Judge Thacher by Mrs. Hallie Louise Ellis, as executrix of the estate of her husband, Daniel B. Ellis, of Denver, Colorado, against W. E. D. Stokes.
The complaint states that the late Mr. Ellis was counsel for the defendant when the latter’s wife, Mrs. Helen Ellwood Stokes, was fighting in the Denver courts for possession of her two children. She won the action, and Mr. Stokes, it is alleged, failed to pay Mr. Ellis for his services. |
|
| Two days later Mrs. Ellis was awarded $3,800. |
New York Times, December 20, 1925
Herman Hoffman, appointed referee in the proceeding by W. E. D. Stokes to compel his former lawyers, Nugent & Nugent, to return papers and records bearing on his matrimonial litigation with Mrs. Helen Ellwood Stokes, filed a bill of $250 for his services in the County Clerk’s office yesterday. A. H. Gleason, attorney for Mr Stokes, insisted that the referee was not entitled to more than $100 for the time devoted to the case, and said he would apply tomorrow to have the fee cut to the sum mentioned.
Referee Hoffman said that after he had taken testimony at one hearing, and several adjournments were asked for, the proceeding was dropped, but that under his agreement he was to get $25 an hour or any part of an hour devoted to the case and that the time consumed amounted to $250. Mr. Gleason asserted that a charge of more than $100 is “unfounded and uncalled for.”
The proceeding before the referee was dropped after Nugent & Nugent announced they would sue Mr. Stokes for heavy damages for alleged damaging statements concerning them. |
|
And in August, 1927, Joseph Gill-Martin, identified as "a painter" by the New York Evening Post, sued the estate of W. E. D. Stokes for $162,534, claiming he had made an agreement in 1910 to collect and restore paintings for Stokes, who intended to sell them, claimed Gill-Martin, and split the profits. The plaintiff said about 600 paintings were involved, valued at $400,000, but Stokes transferred them to his son, W. E. D. Stokes Jr., which was one of his favorite tactics. He had also done it with the Ansonia Hotel.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle put a different spin on the case, saying $75,000 was for a house Gill-Martin said Stokes had promised him. Gill-Martin is identified elsewhere as the curator for Stokes' Ansonia Hotel, where these paintings were displayed.
Unfortunately, I found no story about the resolution of this case. |
|
