|
The Bender, Robinson Co, Inc. was a Delaware Corporation - sometimes
referred to as Bender-Robinson or Bender & Robinson - organized in 1913 to
manufacture automobile bodies. The firm was a reorganization of Bender &
Robinson, a firm formed sometime around 1890 by John Bender and Andrew
Robinson to produce fine carriages. The small factory was located at the
corner of North 11th and Roebling Sts., in the Williamsburg section of
Brooklyn, New York, near Greenpoint Park, (renamed in 1910 as McCarren
Park).
Some bespoke work was done by Bender, Robinson Co. for Manhattan
automobile importers and retailers and between 1914 and 1917 the firm
supplied production bodies for the Singer Motor Co. Inc. whose 630 Jackson
Ave., Long Island City, New York manufacturing facility was located less
than two miles away from the Bender, Robinson Co. factory.
The 1880 US Census lists John Bender (I) as a carriage maker in Flushing,
Queens.
John Bender (I) was born in 1816 in Wittenberg (misspelled as Witenburgh),
Germany. In Germany he married his wife Minnie, and the blessed Union
produced two sons, John (II), born in Wittenberg in 1852, and Fredrick born
in Wittenberg in 1853.
The 1880 US Federal census lists John (II) as a carriage blacksmith and
Fredrick as a carriage painter. Other members of the firm included Jacob
Miller, a 45-year-old wheelwright, born in Wittenberg; L. Grossman, a
30-year old wheelwright born in Wittenberg; E. Washwell, a 30-year-old
wheelwright born in Prussia; John Metzgar, an 18-year-old apprentice born in
New York; John Donohoue, a 14-year old apprentice born in New York; T.
Garowelly, a 30-year-old horse-shoer born in Ireland; and Sawler Bender
<b.1866>, the 14-year-old daughter of ??? Bender, who was employed as a
servant and born in New York.
In the early 1890s Bender decided to relocate his carriage business
closer to lower Manhattan, and entered into a partnership with a Brooklyn
carriage builder and blacksmith named Andrew Robinson. The pair established
their business at the corner of North 11th and Roebling Sts., Brooklyn in
the style of Bender, Robinson Co.
The factory was conveniently located to the Robinson family home which
was located at 537-541 Lorimer St., less than a half-mile from the Bender,
Robinson carriage factory. Bender searched for a new residence near the
factory and on May 29, 1894, the New York Times reported:
“At an auction in the Trinity Building Salesroom yesterday, Messrs. Smyth
& Ryan sold to John Bender, at $4,000, the property at 91 and 93 North
Seventh Street, Brooklyn, north side, about 60 feet east of Wythe Avenue, 40
x 75 with a three-story and basement brick tenement on one lot and a two
story frame on the other.”
91-93 North Seventh St. was also located within a half-mile of the new
Bender, Robinson factory and as was the custom at the time, both proprietors
(and a majority of their employees) now lived within walking distance of
their business.
During the first part of the twentieth century, John Bender (II)’s three
sons; Herman (1883-1964), John (III)(1887-1967) and Joseph (1890-1967),
began working for their father at his Brooklyn carriage shop. The three
Bender brothers joined Andrew Robinson’s son, Andrew Jr., who was already
working for the firm when Herman, the eldest Bender started his
apprenticeship. On Mar 9, 1898, Andrew Robinson Jr., had filed a patent
application for a carriage axle box: US Pat. #620673.
The four apprentices started off working on carriages and were first-hand
witnesses to the firm’s transition from manufacturing carriages to
automobiles. Bender, Robinson Co. enjoyed a good reputation amongst New York
City’s early automobile importers and produced a number of automobile bodies
for Manhattan’s best-known independent automobile body designer, Karl H.
Martin.
That well-earned reputation led them to enter into a contract to supply
production automobile bodies for the recently-organized Singer Motor Co. in
late 1913. To gain much needed capital for the new contract, the firm was
incorporated in the state of Delaware as Bender, Robinson Co. on November
13, 1913.
Bender, Robinson Co. exhibited two bodies on Singer chassis at the
January 1916 New York Auto Salon. The New York Times’ coverage of the event
on Tuesday January 14, 1916 included a description of one of the vehicles:
"In the Singer space a striking car is appointed white sedan with sloping
front windows and adjustable seats. The arrangement is for a plate glass
roof with curtains to protect from the sun. The seats are upholstered in a
rich nut brown velvety material. The woodwork is inlaid with mother of
pearl. The body is by Bender, Robinson & Co."
The January 9, 1916 issue of the Automobile covered both Singers:
“This year the Astor Salon is not an importers' salon as there are only
five foreign chassis on the floor, and these are not of design new to the
American public, Peugeot, Rolls- Royce, Lancia and the Delaunay-Belleville.
“The American cars on the floor are the Singer, White, Daniels, F. R. P.,
Simplex-Crane, Brewster-Knight and Owen Magnetic. In addition to these there
is another foreign car on the floor, the English Daimler, which exhibits a
town body by Henry Labourdette of Paris. The Holbrook company, body maker of
New York City, is showing a Cadillac eight chassis fitted with a Berline
design, a Packard with a landaulet and a White with a landaulet body. Healy
has several bodies on Locomobile chassis and Bender & Robinson are showing
two special bodies on Singer chassis. The regular Singer bodies are also
manufactured by Bender & Robinson.
“Ingenious methods for concealing the extra seats in the seven-passenger
touring design are shown in the Singer bodies. These slide into the front of
the compartment folding into the back of the front seats and being covered
by a shutter. Folding arrangements for seats and body parts are carried out
with a neatness which hardly permits of detection of the folding parts. In
all of the work at the Salon, the Bender & Robinson special roadster with
folding rear deck is a good example of the thoroughness in this work. When
the rear compartment is folded open an upholstered seat with upholstered arm
rests is provided and when closed the flat deck of the roadster conforms
exactly with the ordinary lines of a two-passenger car.
“Sedan Bodies Are Popular
“Sedan bodies with V-shaped front, the apex being at the front end of the
inclosed body, seem to be quite popular. One of these is shown on the Singer
chassis, another on the White and also on the Cadillac. These give an added
length to the body and add to the appearance of lowness. They are difficult,
however, to maintain rain-tight in front and careful provision has to be
made on the windshield for shedding the rain and not allowing it to work
through crevices.”
Noted auto body designer and engineer George J. Mercer mentioned the
Bender, Robinson–bodied Singers in a column in the January 20, 1916
Automobile entitled “1916 Body Design is Uniform” which is excerpted below:
“V Windshield Types
“Fig. 12 is a V-type windshield Sedan exhibited on the White, it is
painted in white and black, and the trimming corresponds; the roof is
leather covered and it makes a very neat, compact body that is not too
extreme to suit the taste of refined people. There was another V windshield
body shown by Holbrook that was larger, and another the Bender & Robinson
exhibit on the Singer, this body being very low, as indicated in the
drawing. It can be opened (permanent roof fashion) and the roof is entirely
of glass, to enable the occupants to get light from above. This job was the
most extreme design at the show, it was finished in good taste, both outside
and in, and the right balance altogether gave the body a racy, but not an
overdone appearance; for its class it hit the mark and did not shoot beyond.
“Fig. 18—Bender and Robinson of advanced streamline form with concealing
top and folding rear seat (caption).
“Fig. 18 is another Bender & Robinson creation. It was tastefully painted
and trimmed and was one of the few that approached a true streamline in its
entire contour. It strongly resembles their larger body.”
Charles Singer, Jr. one of the heirs to the Singer Sewing Machine Co.,
had been general sales manager for the Palmer & Singer Mfg. Co., the
predecessor of the Singer, since 1910. When that firm went bankrupt in 1914,
Singer purchased the name, patents, goodwill and parts of Palmer & Singer
and set up the new business in the former Alco service facility in Long
Island City. Unfortunately production of the Singer ceased with America's
entry into World War I on April 4, 1917, and shortly thereafter Bender,
Robinson Co. was forced into bankruptcy. Historian G.N. Georgano estimates
that Singer produced 500-550 automobiles, most of them prior to the start of
the World War.
After an initial July 22, 1917 hearing, the Federal Court in Manhattan
appointed B.B. Lewis trustee for the firm’s receivers on August 3, 1917.
Additional motions were heard in the case on November 12, 1917 by Judge
Augustus A. Hand and on December 24, 1917 Federal Judge Manton declared the
firm insolvent.
In 1920 Bender, Robinson Co.’s corporate charter was revoked by State of
Delaware for non payment of their annual incorporation fee.
After their stunning debut at the 1916 Auto Salon a number of northern
Ohio- and Indiana-based automobile manufacturers had approached the Bender,
Robinson Co. to see if they were interested in establishing a body plant in
their part of the country. At that time, the partners were uninterested, but
the when the firm was forced into bankruptcy eighteen months later by the
evaporation of Singer body orders, the three Bender Boys started making
inquiries.
Realizing that their business prospects in the metropolitan New York area
were severely limited, the trio eventually entered into a contract with
Ohio-based financiers and relocated to their hometown of Cleveland, Ohio in
1919. In late 1919 the Bender Body Co. was organized with at capital stock
of $75,000. Incorporators included Herman Bender, Emanuel J. Uhlyarick,
Herman Kronenbergeer, John Kern and Peter Boeowski.
One Bender, Robinson-bodied car, a 1914 REO runabout (pictured in
color to the left), recently owned by Jerry
Singer of Cleveland Georgia, bears a coachbuilder’s plate from Andrew
Robinson, Body Builder, N. 11th & Roebling St., Brooklyn.
At that time the R.M. Owen Co. was the Manhattan distributor of for
Premier and REO automobiles, so it’s likely that Jerry Singer’s REO was
bodied by Bender, Robinson. As to why the plate only bears Robinson’s name
remains a mystery. The R.M. Owen Co. (Raymond M. Owen and his brother Ralph
Owen) were also the manufacturers of the short-lived Owen Magnetic
automobile, a car built using the Entz patent electric transmission. Bender,
Robinson are thought to have bodied a handful of early bodies for that
chassis as well.
Early Duesenberg Model As were bodied by the New York
distributor who purchased bodies from northeast coachbuilders who included
H.H. Babcock, Springfield and Woonsocket. The first production Model A,
chassis no. 600, survives today bearing an attractive circa 1917 Bender and
Robinson opera coupe body.
As the Model A debuted in 1921 it remains a mystery as
to why an old body was used. Duesenberg historian Randy Ema reports that the vehicle’s
serial number, 600, verifies that it is the very first production Duesenberg
and states that after being used as a demonstrator it was sold in 1922 to
Samuel Northrup Castle, a founder of the Castle and Cook Co., a Hawaiian
sugar cooperative. The beauty of that car reveals how far ahead of the curve
Bender, Robinson's designs were for that time.
The following transcript mentions the relationship between R.M. Owen Co.,
Karl H. Martin and Bender, Robinson Co.:
“MARTIN v. BENDER et al (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
December 29, 1916.)
“1. Brokers <S=»84(1) — Actions — Burden Of Proof.
“In suit for balance of commission for procuring order for automobile
bodies, payable upon delivery thereof, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to
prove either delivery or that defendant's failure to make delivery was due
to its fault.
“2. Appeal And Error <J=»880(3) — Objection.
"Where a defendant against whom judgment has been rendered is not liable,
but makes no separate motion to dismiss, error in rendering judgment against
him cannot be urged on appeal by a codefendant.
“Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.
“Action by Karl H. Martin against John Bender and another. From a
judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, after trial before the court
without a jury, defendants appeal. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
“Argued November term, 1916, before LEHMAN, WHITAKER, and FINCH, JJ.
"John W. Remer, of New York City, for appellants. Joseph M. Williams, of
New York City, for respondent.
“LEHMAN, J. The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for the agreed value
of services rendered by him as broker in procuring for the Bender-Robinson
Company a contract to build four automobile bodies. The contract of
employment was in writing, signed by defendant John Bender, and provided
that:
“ ‘In the event of a sale by you * * * at a price of $1,455, * * * we
agree to pay you, upon receipt by us from Owen Company of $300 deposit per
body, the sum of $100 upon acceptance by us of said deposit and balance of
$105 upon delivery, making your total on each body $205.’
“It is undisputed that the plaintiff procured for the Bender-Robinson
Company a sale of four automobile bodies to be built by them, and that the
defendant has received a deposit of $1,200, and has paid the plaintiff the
sum of $400 upon the acceptance of the deposit, as provided in the contract.
The plaintiff has now recovered a judgment for the additional sum of $105
upon each of the four bodies which he "sold" for the defendant, or $420.
[1] The contract upon which the plaintiff sues is clear and unambiguous.
Under that contract the sum of $105 becomes payable to the plaintiff only
upon the "delivery" of the bodies to the purchaser. It is perfectly evident
that the defendant agreed to pay the sum of $105 only when delivery was
made, and the plaintiff must prove either that delivery was made or that the
failure to make delivery is due to the defendant's fault. The plaintiff
pleaded that the delivery had not been made, owing to the negligence and
default of the defendants, and that as a result the contracts have been
canceled. If the evidence supports this allegation, the plaintiff has made
out his cause of action.
“The evidence, however, is so confused that it is impossible to determine
what the facts are. The plaintiff was not, on his direct case, required by
the trial justice to prove either delivery or that the non-delivery was due
to the defendant's fault. Although this is the only issue in the case, the
evidence thereafter was brought out in such jumbled form that it is not
intelligible. It appears undisputed that the R.M. Owen Company made this
contract for four bodies, and then canceled it almost immediately, because
they were not satisfied with the work done by the defendants
on previous contracts. Obviously, if the contract was canceled by reason of
work done on previous contracts, then the cancellation was, so far as
concerns the defendants' rights under this contract, arbitrary, and not due
to defendants' fault. If this were the only testimony in the case, of
course, judgment should be ordered for the defendant; but there is some
evidence that thereafter the Owen Company and the defendants agreed to
modify the cancellation, so that it should apply only to two bodies. What
occurred thereafter is veiled in darkest mystery. The defendant could not
deliver the bodies until the Owen Company delivered to them the chassis upon
which the bodies were to be placed. No chassis were delivered and no chassis
were demanded by defendants. An officer of the Owen Company, produced as
plaintiff's witness, testified that no chassis would have been delivered if
demanded because the contract was canceled; on the other hand, the plaintiff
testified that the bodies were never ready for the chassis. Whatever may be
the real facts, the plaintiff cannot recover until he has proven that the
cancellation of the contract or the non-delivery of the chassis was due to
defendants' default.
“[2] Defendant also claims that in any event there can be no judgment
against John Bender individually. Apparently that is true; but, inasmuch as
the defendant Bender made no separate motion to dismiss, the point should
not be considered on appeal.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant
to abide the event. All concur.”
© 2004 Mark Theobald - Coachbuilt.com
|
