Fuel to the fire. Johnson admits Langford did in fact for him!

[travestyny]

This is why the court refused to award plaintiff for lost profits. They could not prove how they could raise or earn $3M with a net profit of $1.6M. Wills couldn’t get Fitz or anyone else to cover Dempsey’s $25K advance just a year prior (it was actually $125K he demanded but offered to accept $25K cash).

Proposition 1. Plaintiff offered to prove by one Mullins that a boxing exhibition between Dempsey and Wills held in the City of Chicago on September 22, 1926, would bring a gross receipt of $3,000,000, and that the expense incurred would be $1,400,000, leaving a net profit to the promoter of $1,600,000. The court properly sustained an objection to this testimony. The character of the undertaking was such that it would be impossible to produce evidence of a probative character sufficient to establish any amount which could be reasonably ascertainable by reason of the character of the undertaking. The profits from a boxing contest of this character, open to the public, is dependent upon so many different circumstances that they are not susceptible of definite legal determination. The success or failure of such an undertaking depends largely upon the ability of the promoters, the reputation of the contestants and the conditions of the weather at and prior to the holding of the contest, the accessibility of the place, the extent of the publicity, the possibility of other and counter attractions and many other questions which would enter into consideration. Such an entertainment lacks utterly the element of stability which exists in regular organized business. This fact was practically admitted by the plaintiff by the allegation of its bill filed in the Marion county court of Indiana asking for an injunction against Dempsey. Plaintiff in its bill in that proceeding charged, as follows:

"That by virtue of the premises aforesaid, the plaintiff will, unless it secures the injunctive relief herein prayed for, suffer great and irreparable injury and damages, not compensable by any action at law in damages, the damages being incapable of commensuration, and plaintiff, therefore, has no adequate remedy at law."

Compensation for damages for a breach of contract must be established by evidence from which a court or jury are able to ascertain the extent of such damages by the usual rules of evidence and to a reasonable degree of certainty. We are of the opinion that the performance in question is not susceptible of proof sufficient to satisfy the requirements and that the damages, if any, are purely speculative. Favar v. Riverview Park, 144 Ill. App. 86; Broadway Photoplay Co. v. World Film Corp., 225 N.Y. 104; Wooldridge v. Shea, 175 N.Y.S. 130; Bernstein v. Meech, 130 N.Y. 354.

But they were awarded some damages...looks like around $100,000. Not sure what happened on appeal, but this was in 1928. I guess it stopped being worthy news after this point.

PfbaWE.png

I also ran into an article that stated Dempsey later applied for his promoters license so that he could work for...The Chicago Coliseum Club. They didn't hate the guy. I think one of the dudes who ran the club stated that he actually quite liked Dempsey. They just wanted him to keep his promise.