Dempsey Wills lawsuit

[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.

The 1931 court case was settled in Dempseys favor once the plaintiffs accepted Dempseys proposal to fight Wills now. The judge told the jury to come back with a verdict in Dempseys favor the next day and the trial was over.

At some point late in 1931/early in 1932 the plaintiff's appealed the trial verdict. The appellate judge’s opinion I posted last night. This is where the appealed judge threw the case back for retrial but limited greatly potential damages but it he case was never retried.

Thus the only court case regarding this matter Dempsey won.

[travestyny]

The 1931 court case was settled in Dempseys favor once the plaintiffs accepted Dempseys proposal to fight Wills now. The judge told the jury to come back with a verdict in Dempseys favor the next day and the trial was over.

At some point late in 1931/early in 1932 the plaintiff's appealed the trial verdict. The appellate judge’s opinion I posted last night. This is where the appealed judge threw the case back for retrial but limited greatly potential damages but it he case was never retried.

Thus the only court case regarding this matter Dempsey won.

I think it's a stretch to claim that he won when he got an injunction slapped against him that forced him to change his fight from one place to another and a court case that clearly states he breached the contract and should be held liable for damages, even if it was for $1.

In the sense that he got off easy, then sure, he should take it as a win.

He breached the contract and the court made that clear. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept what you see with your own eyes.

[HOUDINI563]

I think it's a stretch to claim that he won when he got an injunction slapped against him that forced him to change his fight from one place to another and a court case that clearly states he breached the contract and should be held liable for damages, even if it was for $1.

In the sense that he got off easy, then sure, he should take it as a win.

He breached the contract and the court made that clear. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept what you see with your own eyes.

I don’t believe you complete any due diligence. You find snippets but then refuse to do the work to fill in the blanks.

Why did you never let anyone know Dempsey won the lawsuit? You never bothered to do the two hours of work necessary to fill in the blanks?

Here they are at the height of the Great Depression and in what you say was a clear and easy win and the Chicago consortium. They agree to a proposal to end the lawsuit to stage a fight where they need to come up with around a million $ just to fulfill Dempseys purse? At least in March 1931 at the trials close the plaintiffs had to have serious doubts of victory. Otherwise why walk away from what you say was an easy win.

More than likely once Dempsey was declared the winner of the lawsuit by agreeing to fulfill the contract “now” the Consortium realized they could not gain sufficient financing. Dempsey however had fulfilled what he promised. Was not his fault the Consortium could not fulfill their side of the deal.

Years later Dempsey stated he was “sued for breach of contract and I won the case”. He was telling the truth.

[travestyny]

I don’t believe you complete any due diligence. You find snippets but then refuse to do the work to fill in the blanks.

Why did you never let anyone know Dempsey won the lawsuit? You never bothered to do the two hours of work necessary to fill in the blanks?

Here they are at the height of the Great Depression and in what you say was a clear and easy win and the Chicago consortium. They agree to a proposal to end the lawsuit to stage a fight where they need to come up with around a million $ just to fulfill Dempseys purse? At least in March 1931 at the trials close the plaintiffs had to have serious doubts of victory. Otherwise why walk away from what you say was an easy win.

More than likely once Dempsey was declared the winner of the lawsuit by agreeing to fulfill the contract “now” the Consortium realized they could not gain sufficient financing. Dempsey however had fulfilled what he promised. Was not his fault the Consortium could not fulfill their side of the deal.

Years later Dempsey stated he was “sued for breach of contract and I won the case”. He was telling the truth.

Did you just read anything I said.

He didn't "win" the lawsuit. He had an injunction slapped against him and the case was sent back FOR DAMAGES. That is not a win.

The court brief that has been shared here multiple times explained the damages that could be sought and could not be sought. The court didn't believe you could predict how much money would be lost out due to Dempsey's breach of contract. For example, weather could have thrown the amount that would have been made off drastically.

If he agreed to fulfill the contract, then why didn't they fight? You claim it was over in 1931 but then you go on to talk about what happened of consequence in 1932. It makes no sense.

Dempsey DID NOT fulfill his end of the contract which is why it was stated clearly that the contract was breached and it was sent back for damages. Whether the damages were sought or given up on doesn't change the fact that the court made it clear that he breached the contract. It was also a done deal that an injunction prevented him from pursuing a fight with anyone except Wills in Chicago.

He wasn't telling the truth. He was playing with semantics just like you are simply because he got away with not having to pay much. He didn't get away clean because of the injunction and he would be held liable for minimal damages. I get that you and he want to spin it, but it's written in plain English.

[Willie Pep 229]

Interesting. Very interesting arguments.

I still can't see how the Appellate Court, which TravestyNy has a copy of, can levy against Dempsey a $1500 settlement without there being a conviction somewhere.

I can't remember now, if the Court Opinion actually said an amount, but I THINK it does.

I feel certain Dempsey never paid anybody anything near $100,000.

What is now the boxing issue is the purported 1931 match-up.

Do you have any details on that?

There is in the articles (which I read) only a one line mention about a possible fight.

Not enough information to try to gage the seriousness of the offer.

Got anymore? I only have access to the New York Times archive. These midwest papers you are posting are interesting.

Also, I wonder why couldn't they come up with the gurantee?

• Rickard was dead.
• Tunney was retired.
• Dempsey was free of Kearns, finally.
• Wills was still in a relationship with his manager (name escapes me)
• The fight game itself was not doing well. The Sharkey-Schmeling fights had both been stinkers.

TravestyNy has an $800,000 check that shows the Chicago people had the backing, at least back in late August 1926 (too late).

If this fight was an actual possiblity I can't see why the money wouldn't be there.

Would never have been the fight it would have been in 1922, but I think it still sells.

If the offer was real where did the promoters all go?

[travestyny]

Interesting. Very interesting arguments.

I still can't see how the Appellate Court, which TravestyNy has a copy of, can levy against Dempsey a $1500 settlement without there being a conviction somewhere.

I can't remember now, if the Court Opinion actually said an amount, but I THINK it does.

I feel certain Dempsey never paid anybody anything near $100,000.

What is now the boxing issue is the purported 1931 match-up.

Do you have any details on that?

There is in the articles (which I read) only a one line mention about a possible fight.

Not enough information to try to gage the seriousness of the offer.

Got anymore? I only have access to the New York Times archive. These midwest papers you are posting are interesting.

Also, I wonder why couldn't they come up with the gurantee?

• Rickard was dead.
• Tunney was retired.
• Dempsey was free of Kearns, finally.
• Wills was still in a relationship with his manager (name escapes me)
• The fight game itself was not doing well. The Sharkey-Schmeling fights had both been stinkers.

TravestyNy has an $800,000 check that shows the Chicago people had the backing, at least back in late August 1926 (too late).

If this fight was an actual possiblity I can't see why the money wouldn't be there.

Would never have been the fight it would have been in 1922, but I think it still sells.

If the offer was real where did the promoters all go?

Well they both lost in '26. I think all of it was over then and there regarding a fight. It would make sense that there would be less promoters interested in '31 when they were both far past it. They both picked up another loss by the time '31 rolls around.

Around '22 was the right time for the fight. '26 was the last chance and the only hindrance to the fight then was Dempsey's side.

[Willie Pep 229]

The New York Times has blocked me from posting articles. Or I am computer challenged.

But there is an interesting article about the court room challenge made by Dempsey and the suggested level of its validity.

NYT March 27th, 1931.

There is no mention of a verdict. Still looking through the Times.

There is also no mention of a judge just a promoter named E. B. Clements (President of the Chicago organization.) who yells back at Dempsey that he'll find the money.



Will keep looking.

*Dempsey was yelling out of turn while Paddy Mullins (Will's manager.) was testifying.

[travestyny]

The New York Times has blocked me from posting articles. Or I am computer challenged.

But there is an interesting article about the court room challenge made by Dempsey and the suggested level of its validity.

NYT March 27th, 1931.

There is no mention of a verdict. Still looking through the Times.

There is also no mention of a judge just a promoter named E. B. Clements (President of the Chicago organization.) who yells back at Dempsey that he'll find the money.



Will keep looking.

*Dempsey was yelling out of turn while Paddy Mullins (Will's manager.) was testifying.

If I remember correctly, Old Paddy accosted Dempsey outside of the courtroom, claimed he was going to kick Dempsey's ass himself, and tried to get at him.

Thankfully, for his sake, he wasn't allowed to try it

[kara]

Give TravestyNy some of the credit. Him and I beat up on eachother over the topic. It is an interesting story that starts in fall 1925 and plays out right up to the first Tunney fight a year later.

But I am curious about the trial Houndin's article is referring to. That's all new info to me.

Last boxer vs. boxer court case was Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

[Willie Pep 229]

Last boxer vs. boxer court case was Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

Yes, that resolved nothing I believe. Then there was the Fury-Wilde arbitration.

Schmeling tried to sue Braddock into the ring but that went nowhere as well.

Then there was, back in the early 1930s, a Philadelphia gangster named Bo Bo Hoff who tried to sue Gene Tunney after Tunney's manger Billy Gibson fordged Tunney's signature and sold 20% of Tunney to the gangstter. Tunney won that case easy as Billy Gibson hid in a sanatorium and a judge ruled him unable to testify do to mental deficiency (punch drunk).

Gibson was released from rehab the moment the case was dismissed.