Dempsey Wills lawsuit

[HOUDINI563]

In early 1926 Will's people should have been talking to the Chicago Athletic Club who were in the process of signing Dempsey to a Wills-Dempsey fight in Chicago.

I don't see how Wills was in a position to turn down a Tunney offer in early 1926. He should already have been committed to Chicago until early July when Dempsey then publicly breached the contract.

Only then would Wills have been free, and by then Tunney was signed to fight Dempsey.

So I don't see how a Wills-Tunney could be a serious offer in early 1926.

The articles I posted above come from early fall of 1925. If someone made Wills an offer in early 1926 that would not mean much. Wills had to think, once Dempsey signed, he was going to get his shot at Dempsey, why take Tunney.

If you are going to claim Wills ducked Tunney you have to show an offer before Dempsey signed with the Chicago people, otherwise Wills was tied up, waiting to see if Dempsey would honor the contract. Which he didn t.

I believe what we see in October 1926, Wills-Sharkey was the elimination bout that Wills-Tunney was susposed to be back in 1925.

But I don't see how a 1926 Wills-Tunney fight was possible.



Can you post who made Wills an offer in early 1926?

Dempsey and Wills signed, separately, the 1926 contract in March of 1926.

I have several personal documents that show the 1925 and 1926 contracts were serious contracts. Dempsey expresses frustration that he was not paid the contracted sum of $125,000. “Either Fitzsimmons comes up with the money or the fight is off”.

Why sign the 1926 contract if the 1925 contract was a sham? (a sham contract that was broken when Dempsey was not paid that $125,000?).

[HOUDINI563]

1. Yes. We know according to the contract precisely when Dempsey was supposed to be paid, and we have the evidence that the money was there precisely when it was supposed to be.

2. I don't think we'll ever know if he settled out of court or if they dropped the matter. My guess is they dropped it because it seemed they weren't going to be able to get the substantial amount they were looking for.

No. Dempsey won the lawsuit as per the several articles I posted.

The APPEAL, the appellate judges decision, sent the case back for retrial but it was never retried.

The question is what happened to the agreed to Dempsey Wills bout post trial?

[travestyny]

No. Dempsey won the lawsuit as per the several articles I posted.

The APPEAL, the appellate judges decision, sent the case back for retrial but it was never retried.

The question is what happened to the agreed to Dempsey Wills bout post trial?

If he "won" there wouldn't have been an injunction slapped against him. It was sent back for proper DAMAGES to be calculated after what it stated was a CLEAR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Give it up.

[HOUDINI563]

If he "won" there wouldn't have been an injunction slapped against him. It was sent back for proper DAMAGES to be calculated after what it stated was a CLEAR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Give it up.

No. Here is one of numerous quotes from the appellate judges decision that references the case would need to be RETRIED:

“During the proceeding in the circuit court of this county it was sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing damages, other than nominal damages, and in view of the fact that the CASE HAS TO BE RETRIED, this court is asked to consider the various items of expense claimed to have been incurred and various offers of proof made to establish damages for breach of the agreement.”

So you are not being truthful here. The appellate judge decision was to send the case back for RETRIAL. For that retrial he determined what costs incurred by the plaintiff could be recovered if he won the retrial. The case was never retried however.

Dempsey won the only trial that took place when he agreed to fight Wills “right here and now”. The judge asked Dempsey and the plaintiff if they both agreed and they concurred. The judge then told the jury to return a decision in Dempseys favor. All this as per the articles I posted originally. (See another thread I started where I attached all the various articles I found).

[Willie Pep 229]

No. Here is one of numerous quotes from the appellate judges decision that references the case would need to be RETRIED:

“During the proceeding in the circuit court of this county it was sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing damages, other than nominal damages, and in view of the fact that the CASE HAS TO BE RETRIED, this court is asked to consider the various items of expense claimed to have been incurred and various offers of proof made to establish damages for breach of the agreement.”

So you are not being truthful here. The appellate judge decision was to send the case back for RETRIAL. For that retrial he determined what costs incurred by the plaintiff could be recovered if he won the retrial. The case was never retried however.

Dempsey won the only trial that took place when he agreed to fight Wills “right here and now”. The judge asked Dempsey and the plaintiff if they both agreed and they concurred. The judge then told the jury to return a decision in Dempseys favor. All this as per the articles I posted originally. (See another thread I started where I attached all the various articles I found).

Are you saying the Judge "told" the jury to find in favor of Dempsey, because Dempsey stood up in court and said 'let's fight right now'?

That seems very odd.

I read a news article about that event and the reporter said it brought a great laugh from the court and observers. But no one took it seriously.

Besides why would a judge 'tell' a jury how to decide a case?

That is part of British common law, judges do offer their opinion of the evidence to juries, but it is not part of our system.

Judges instruct juries on the law but do not suggest, never mind tell, a jury how to decide a case.

[HOUDINI563]

Are you saying the Judge "told" the jury to find in favor of Dempsey, because Dempsey stood up in court and said 'let's fight right now'?

That seems very odd.

I read a news article about that event and the reporter said it brought a great laugh from the court and observers. But no one took it seriously.

Besides why would a judge 'tell' a jury how to decide a case?

That is part of British common law, judges do offer their opinion of the evidence to juries, but it is not part of our system.

Judges instruct juries on the law but do not suggest, never mind tell, a jury how to decide a case.

I posted the articles months ago. Please located the thread. The judge stated if both parties agreed to Dempseys proposal this would fulfill the contract. The plaintiff agreed. The judge then asked the jury to return a verdict in Dempseys favor. Trial was over that day or the next.

I’ve been trying for years to find information as to how this trial ended. Found NOTHING until a specific search on a newspaper archive brought up numerous articles which I posted.

[travestyny]

No. Here is one of numerous quotes from the appellate judges decision that references the case would need to be RETRIED:

“During the proceeding in the circuit court of this county it was sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing damages, other than nominal damages, and in view of the fact that the CASE HAS TO BE RETRIED, this court is asked to consider the various items of expense claimed to have been incurred and various offers of proof made to establish damages for breach of the agreement.”

So you are not being truthful here. The appellate judge decision was to send the case back for RETRIAL. For that retrial he determined what costs incurred by the plaintiff could be recovered if he won the retrial. The case was never retried however.

Dempsey won the only trial that took place when he agreed to fight Wills “right here and now”. The judge asked Dempsey and the plaintiff if they both agreed and they concurred. The judge then told the jury to return a decision in Dempseys favor. All this as per the articles I posted originally. (See another thread I started where I attached all the various articles I found).

Retried to decide on THE DAMAGES THAT DEMPSEY OWED.

Your quotation is from the same court brief that says clearly he owes damages. So it's YOU that is being dishonest.

image.png


THE PLAINTIFF, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WAS ENTITLED TO AT LEAST NOMINAL DAMAGES!!!


Dempsey didn't win.

1. The injunction was upheld.
2. The court right here says plainly that he is on the hook for damages, albeit nominal damages. It's written right there in plain English.

[HOUDINI563]

Retried to decide on THE DAMAGES THAT DEMPSEY OWED.

Your quotation is from the same court brief that says clearly he owes damages. So it's YOU that is being dishonest.

image.png


THE PLAINTIFF, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WAS ENTITLED TO AT LEAST NOMINAL DAMAGES!!!


Dempsey didn't win.

1. The injunction was upheld.
2. The court right here says plainly that he is on the hook for damages, albeit nominal damages. It's written right there in plain English.

No. It’s once again your pulling snippets to give credibility to a predetermined conclusion.

Dempsey won the lawsuit in 1931. I posted four articles stating as such. One was via AP. Another via UP. So there is no getting around it. Dempsey won the 1931 lawsuit.

You as typical are trying to convolute the discussion. What occurred in 1931 is a matter of history. Dempsey won the case.

The APPEAL occurred in 1932.

The appellate judge in 1932 threw the case back for retrial (“the case should be retried”) and provided a guideline based upon case law as to what damages could and could not be reclaimed. Within that appellate judges decision was his opinion that the plaintiff had grounds to win that case in 1931. BUT THEY DIDN’T.

[HOUDINI563]

AND here once again is a quote directly from the ruling:

“During the proceeding in the circuit court of this county it was sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing damages, other than nominal damages, and in view of the fact that the CASE HAS TO BE RETRIED, this court is asked to consider the various items of expense claimed to have been incurred and various offers of proof made to establish damages for breach of the agreement.”

In black in white “and in view of the FACT that the CASE HAS TO BE RETRIED”.

The case as far as I can see was never retried.

[travestyny]

No. It’s once again your pulling snippets to give credibility to a predetermined conclusion.

Dempsey won the lawsuit in 1931. I posted four articles stating as such. One was via AP. Another via UP. So there is no getting around it. Dempsey won the 1931 lawsuit.

You as typical are trying to convolute the discussion. What occurred in 1931 is a matter of history. Dempsey won the case.

The APPEAL occurred in 1932.

The appellate judge in 1932 threw the case back for retrial (“the case should be retried”) and provided a guideline based upon case law as to what damages could and could not be reclaimed. Within that appellate judges decision was his opinion that the plaintiff had grounds to win that case in 1931. BUT THEY DIDN’T.

No. What you are trying to do is distort what the court found.

The appeals court in 1932 REVERSED the decision from 1931 and sent the case back FOR DAMAGES, clearly stating that Dempsey is liable for damages and detailing what type of items he is liable for after what it writes is a "clear breach of contract." It even said flat out that judgement should have been for the plaintiff as a matter of law. THAT is the history.

What occurred in 1931 was REVERSED because though damages to the extent sought were speculative, itemized damages were not. You know what reversed means, right?




Did the court say that Dempsey is responsible for damages?
Did a court issue an injunction against Dempsey?


A simple yes or no would suffice.