"Mr. Steinfeld Is In Sole Control: The Celebrated Case of Louis Zeckendorf vs. Albert Steinfeld and the Silver Bell Copper Company," by Bettina Lyons, appears with the expressed written permission of the Arizona Historical Society. The Journal of Arizona History, volume 41, number 2, Summer 2000 p. 149-180 Published by the Arizona Historical Society, Bruce J. Dinges, Editor-in-Chief

 

NOTES

1. Albert Steinfeld, "Memoirs," manuscript (1931); and Albert Steinfeld, "Early Recollections of My Life," manuscript (1930), copies in author's files. Steinfeld claimed that Louis Zeckendorf founded the Tucson branch of A. & L. Zeckendorf, when he first visited the Old Pueblo in 1867. He made a second visit the following year. According to the A. & L. Zeckendorf & Co. advertisement in the Arizona Quarterly Illustrated, July 1880; Tucson City Directory, 1881; Weekly Arizona Citizen (Tucson), April 23, 1882; and Biographical Record of Arizona (n.p.: McFarland Publishing Company, 1896), p. 530, the Tucson store was founded in 1866.

2. Steinfeld, "Early Recollections."

3. Arizona Weekly Star (Tucson), April 11, 1878.

4. W. L. Johnson engineering report for the Silver Bell Copper Company, May 17, 1902, in III Citizen Cases #3483, MS 183, Arizona Historical Society (AHS), Tucson. By the time Julia Zeckendorf acquired the Old Boot, it had been relocated under the name of the Mammoth Copper Company. As far as the family was concerned, the mine would always be referred to as the Old Boot.

5. Mary Nielsen, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl S. Nielsen, Deceased vs. Albert Steinfeld [Steinfeld v. Nielsen, 15 Ariz., April 1914, p. 4281, Civil Case #1088, University of Arizona Law Library.

6. Albert Steinfeld to Louis Zeckendorf; January 27, 1899, III Citizen Cases #3483. Unless otherwise noted, all correspondence is in this collection.

7. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, January 27, June 5, 1899; Nielsen Mining & Smelting Company Stock Certificates, May 8, 1889, ibid.

8. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, August 7, 75, 1899.

9. J. N. Curtis testimony, in Reporter's Transcript, May 1905, Albert Steinfeld et al. v. Louis Zeckendorf, III Citizen Cases #3483. Curtis testified that Volkert and Francis worked for the Globe Minerals Exploration Company. They filed their jumper claims on January 1, 1900.

10. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, August 31, October 5, 1899.

11. Ibid., October 20, 1899.

12. Ibid., November 13, 1899.

13. Ibid., December 21, 1899.

14. Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, December 22, 1899.

15. Albert Steinfeld testimony, in Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, p. 40; Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, March 26, 1900.

RETURN to article

16. District Court of the First Judicial District, Territory of Arizona, Pima County, "Findings of Fact" (1908), pp. 10, 13-14. Louis Zeckendorf and Albert Steinfeld, "Modifications and Additions to Partnership Agreement," August 7, 1899; Margaret Francis and Julius Volkert to Mammoth Copper Company Deed, recorded May 17, 1900, ibid.

17. Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, June 2, 1900.

18. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, June 10, 1900; Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, August 1, 1900.

19. Steinfeld testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, pp. 7, 239; Carl S. Nielsen, Mary Nielsen, and L. B. Lewis to Albert Steinfeld Deed, June 29, 1900; Certificate No. 2, in Nielsen Mining and Smelting Company stock assignment book, all in III Citizen Cases #3483.

20. Irene Pizzini oral reminiscence with the author. Albert Steinfeld to Selim Franklin, October 4, 1900, Selim M. Franklin Collection, Special Collections, University of Arizona Library (SC, UAL), Tucson. The investors' meeting was held on October 20, 1900.

21. Steinfeld testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, p. 205. In fact, Zeckendorf insisted that Albert had said nothing to him about purchasing the mines and drat he first discovered that Albert had acquired the English claims and the jumper claims, through the Mammoth Copper Company, after the sale of the Silver Bell property. Zeckendorf testimony, ibid., p. 104.

22. Curtis testimony, ibid., p. 149.

23. Zeckendorf testimony, ibid., pp. 9-10. The 1902 Tucson Directory lists Louis Zeckendorf residing at 2 Convent Street.

24. Zeckendorf testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, pp. 9-10, 129.

25. Curtis testimony, ibid., p. 151; Steinfeld testimony, ibid., p. 182.

26. Steinfeld's July 15, 7901, proposition is in "Findings of Fact," pp. 19-23; Selim Franklin testimony. Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, p. 260. Franklin had expected Albert to notify Louis of the upcoming meeting and to send his uncle a copy of the proposition so that Louis would have an opportunity to review it before he voted the L. Zeckendorf & Company stock. Franklin testimony, ibid., p. 260.

27. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, August 2, 1901, February 21, 1902.

28. Ibid., November 22, 1902. The Silver Bell Copper Company did not hold a stockholders' meeting in 1902.

29. "Findings of Fact," p. 27; Steinfeld testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, pp. 185-86. Mining engineer E. B. Gage and William E Staunton organized the Imperial Copper Company, out of the Development Company of America, for the purpose of buying the Silver Bell mines. Gage and Frank M. Murphy formed the Development Company in 1900 and, in October, visited Staunton, superintendent of the Tombstone Mining Company. Murphy organized the Tombstone Consolidated Mine Company to pump water out of the Tombstone mines, reviving their operation from 1901-1911. William F. Staunton deposition, ibid., p. 204; James E. Sherman and Barbara Sherman, Ghost Towns of Arizona (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969), p. 139; Odie B. Faulk, Tombstone (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 180-81.

30. "Findings of Fact," pp. 33-35; 100 Pacific Reporter 789.

RETURN to article

31. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, May 20, 1903; Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, May 21, 1903.

32. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, May 22, 1903.

33. Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, May 28, 1903.

34. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, June 4, 1903.

35. Zeckendorf to Steinfeld, June 18, 7 903. Louis reminded Albert that he had offered to have L. Zeckendorf & Company refund the $2,000 Steinfeld had paid for the 300 shares of Nielsen stock, but that Albert had said not to mind, the concern owes our firm enough money.

36. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, June 30, 1903.

37. Zeckendorf testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, pp. 81-83.

38. Steinfeld testimony, ibid., p. 188.

39. Ibid., pp. 189-90. Nothing was resolved in San Francisco. The two proud men were determined that theirs' was the correct position and neither would acquiesce to the other. Albert explained that he fully intended to make a cash distribution to the stockholders from the second note and that all he wanted was to be protected regarding his personal guarantees. He demanded that Zeckendorf immediately dismiss the attachment suit. Louis agreed that the cash and notes should remain in the Bank of California, but not in Steinfeld's name. When they were withdrawn, they should be placed to the credit of the treasurer of the Silver Bell Copper Company and held for the company. Steinfeld, on the other hand, refused to replace Shelton with Zeckendorf on the Silver Bell Copper Company board of directors.

40. Louis Zeckendorf, Plaintiff vs. Albert Steinfeld, Bank of California, a corporation, Silver Bell Copper Company, a corporation, J. N. Curtis & R. K. Shelton, Defendants, December 8, 1903, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Tucson Citizen, December 9, 1903.

41. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, December 12, 1903; Louis Zeckendorf vs. Albert Steinfeld for a dissolution of the company partnership firm of L. Zeckendorf & Co. and the liquidation of the affairs thereof, February 6, 1904, Pima County District Court Case #3496, Book 8, p. 167. Albert demanded that Zeckendorf dismiss the injunction suit, promising that he would "comply fully and faithfully with the terms of the contract existing between me and the Silver Bell Copper Company, bearing the 20th day of May 7903." Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, December 20, 1903; Steinfeld testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, p. 130.

42. Curtis testimony, Reporter's Transcript, Steinfeld et al. v. Zeckendorf, pp. 171, 174. Steinfeld claimed that the English mines were more valuable than the Old Boot and, therefore, he was being extremely fair in asking for only one-half the proceeds from the sale, less the real estate commission. Curtis, an experienced mining man, agreed. On December 17, 1912, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Steinfeld completely controlled Curtis and Shelton's votes.

43. Zeckendorf vs. Steinfeld, Case #3496, Book 8, p. 167; Tucson Post, February 13, 1904.

44. Steinfeld to Zeckendorf, May 18, 1904, Francis Hereford Papers, SC, UAL. Tucson Citizen, May 28, 1904.

45. Arizona Daily Star, March 17, 1905; March 13, 1924.

46. Tucson Citizen, May 16, 1905; Arizona Daily Star, May 17, 1905. First Judicial District, Pima County, Territory of Arizona, Case #3483, Book 8, pp. 154-67, microfilm, Pima County Courthouse, Tucson; U.S. Supreme Court, 222-225 (1912), 56 Law ED 1160, UA Law Library; John H. Campbell's opinion in Zeckendorf vs. Steinfeld and the Silver Bell Copper Company, September 15, 1905, in Case #3483.

47. Tucson Citizen, March 16, 1906

48. U.S. Supreme Court, 222-225 (1912); 10 Ariz. 221, 86 Pac. 7; Arizona Supreme Court, judgment in the Case of Zeckendorf vs. Steinfeld, March 23, 1907, all in UA Law Library. Ironically, the federal court also found that "Steinfeld could have purchased [the English group of mines] for his own benefit, even if the [Silver Bell] corporation had funds sufficient to make the purchase." Selim Franklin, therefore, was wrong to have insisted that Steinfeld must offer the English claims to the Silver Bell Company. Nevertheless, Steinfeld had faith in his attorney and followed his advice.

49. Louis Zeckendorf, appellant vs. Albert Steinfeld, J. N. Curtis, R. K. Shelton, et al. and Albert Steinfeld et al., appellants vs. Louis Zeckendorf, U.S. Supreme Court 222-225 (1912), 56 Law ED 1160 and 10 Ariz. 221, 86 Pac. 7. Arizona Supreme Court, judgment, March 23, 1907.

50. Tucson Citizen, November 4, 1916.

RETURN to article