• HOME
  
• CATALOG
  
• SPECIALS
  
• ARTICLES
  
• ARCHIVES
  
• LINKS
  
• NEWS
  
• COMPANY INFO
  
• CONTACTS

The Leeds & Catlin Story
(1894–1910)

By Allan Sutton
Labels photos courtesy of Kurt Nauck

For more than a decade, Edward F. Leeds (1874–1933) and the companies he directed openly flaunted patents, posing a serious challenge to Victor and Columbia, but in the process becoming one of America’s leading record manufacturers.

Leeds Enters the Cylinder Business

The Leeds story begins with Edison’s decision to stop manufacturing its own entertainment cylinders in the early 1890s. On September 1, 1894, the North American’s Phonograph Company’s record-making facility was sold to Walter Miller, the former manager of Edison’s duplicating facility, and Cleveland Walcutt. Walcutt, Miller & Company—which would soon grow to include Edward F. Leeds and Henry J. Hagen—resumed cylinder record production in North American’s former premises at 120 East 14th Street.

After Miller returned to Edison, the company was reorganized as Walcutt & Leeds. When Edison resumed manufacture of its own enertainment cylinders in or around May 1897, the company was slow to amass a sufficient stock of records and so, for a time, they obtained many records from outside suppliers, including Walcutt & Leeds.

Just prior to this arrangement, Walcutt & Leeds had been sued by the American Graphophone Company (Columbia) for illegally duplicating cylinders. ¹ Although the suit was decided in Columbia’s favor, Walcutt & Leeds continued to operate as usual—the beginning of a pattern that would persist for more than a decade. American Graphophone sued Edward Leeds again in 1898, this time over his appropriation of Columbia’s floating reproducer design. ²

In June 1899, the firm of Walcutt & Leeds was reorganized as the Leeds & Catlin Company of New York, with offices at 53 E. 11th Street. With Walcutt’s departure, the directors were now Edward F. Leeds, L. Reade Catlin, James Thursby, and Louis C. Wegenfuth. The new company was incorporated on June 15, 1899, with a rather meager capitalization of $10,000. ³ Six months later, the capital stock was increased to $20,000. ⁴

Leeds & Catlin continued the cylinder business begun by Walcutt & Leeds, but it must have been apparent to the directors that disc records were the wave of the future. The advent of Edison’s and Columbia’s mass-produced molded cylinders in 1901–02 put Leeds at a distinct disadvantage. By 1903, when it made its last known cylinder releases, Leeds was plotting to enter the disc market through an affiliation with the Talk-O-Phone Company of Toldeo, Ohio.

The Ohio Connection

Talk-O-Phone was successor to the short-lived Ohio Talking Machine Company, founded in 1902 by Winant Van Zant Pearce Bradley and Albert Irish. Bradley allegedly indulged in disc-record piracy early in the century and was later found guilty of pirating Victor and Fonotipia records (see Early American Disc Record Piracy.)

Bradley first registered the Talk-O-Phone trademark in his name on May 10, 1902, claiming use on phonographs (but not records) beginning January 1, 1902. ⁵ The Ohio Talking Machine Company’s earliest known catalog, issued in 1903, featured a poodle-and-phonograph trademark with the slogan “Familiar Voices,” an obvious imitation of Victor’s “His Master’ Voice” that never appeared on record labels. In November of that year the company filed an application for a new parrot-and-phonograph trademark, “Learning Some New Ones.” ⁶ The parrot’s first known appearance in print came in a December 1903 New York Times ad. ⁷

Ohio Talking Machine had already issued a few of its own discs, under the Monogram label, which are believed to have been recorded in Toldeo. Talk-O-Phone also issued its own discs, initially in 7" and 9" pressings, and claimed to maintain a studio in Toledo. ⁸ Given the obscure artists who appeared on early Talk-O-Phone discs, that was quite likely the case. Being standard lateral-cut recordings, they clearly violated Victor’s and Columbia’s basic patents.

The Leeds Disc Record

Also ignoring all patent restictions, Leeds had its first discs ready for sale during the Christmas season of 1903, marketed alongside its cylinders and the Talk-O-Phone machines. ⁹ The earliest issues were 7" pressings, crediting the Ohio Talking Machine Company and numbered in a 1000 series. By March 1904, Leeds was also producing 10", discs retailing for 75¢ each or $9 per dozen and numbered in a 4000 series. By then, Talk-O-Phone had replaced the Ohio Talking Machine label imprint.

A December 1903 ad from the New York Times. The center panel
depicts Leeds’ cylinder-box label.
(Mainspring Press Collection)

They were truly distinctive discs, for in place of plain paper labels, they bore gold-foil seals pressed into an underlying, elaborately sculpted bas-relief with raised lettering. The early pressings were often crude, with uneven surfaces and bits of foreign matter in the shellac. Nevertheless, the pressing quality soon improved. The records were reasonably well recorded, and they featured many of the same artists as Columbia, Edison, and Victor. Within a short time, Talk-O-Phone began issuing Leeds material under its own much plainer paper label. As Leeds & Catlin’s midwestern affiliate, Talk-O-Phone would soon find itself named as co-defendent in early lawsuits filed against Leeds.

The Lawsuits Begin

Once again American Graphophone mounted a legal challenge to Leeds, this time claiming infringement of Columbia’s crucial Jones patent #688,739 covering lateral disc recording in wax. The trial opened in U.S. District Court in New York on May 16, 1904 ¹⁰ and continued into mid-summer. Louis Hicks, who would represent Leeds & Catlin in this and the many suits that followed, filed a demurrer in which he argued, among other things, that the Jones patent was void for lack of invention, an assertion that Judge Platt dismissed as “obviously futile.” Platt overruled the demurrer and gave Leeds & Catlin ten days to respond, a deadline the company ignored. ¹¹

When the trial resumed more than a year later, on August 14, 1905, Hicks changed his strategy, this time claiming that Columbia had no formal title to the Jones patent and therefore had no legal capacity to sue. To their dismay, the Columbia attorneys were indeed unable to produce the original Patent Office assignment, as required by law. Judge Hazel refused to allow a certified copy to be entered as evidence, and Columbia’s plea was dismissed.

Leeds' Connecticut factory complex, occupying 100,000 square feet
in five buildings, opened in October 1905.
(Mainspring Press Collection)

In the wake of Columbia’s sustained attacks, a shift in strategy was apparent at Leeds & Catlin by late 1905. In October, the company opened a massive new factory and pressing plant in Middletown, Connecticut. ¹² Rumors that Leeds planned to resume production of cylinders sent Edison informants scuttling to investigate the situation, ¹³ but no cylinders were forthcoming. Instead, Leeds built its disc business aggressively. The Leeds Record brand, with its old-fashioned, gaudy foil label, was slowly phased out. In its place came the Imperial brand, sporting ordinary paper labels that, perhaps tellingly, were devoid of any mention of Leeds. For a time, both brands were produced, with Imperial simply adding 40000 to the corresponding Leeds catalog numbers (e.g., Leeds 4490 = Imperial 44490). Imperial’s 40000 numerical series continued uninterrupted after the Leeds label was discontinued.

The Imperial label, introduced in 1905, eventually replaced the foil-label discs as Leeds' flagship label. A classical and operatic series, launched in 1906, used imported masters.

No doubt anticipating challenges from the Victor Talking Machine Company, Leeds and its Talk-O-Phone affiliate next turned their attention to circumventing Victor’s key Berliner patent #534,543, which specified that the reproducer be propelled by a laterally modulated groove of constant depth. Leeds’ solution, announced in 1906, was to propel the reproducer by means of a feed-screw device. Leeds pressings of the period bear stickers warning that the records were sold only for use on mechanical-feed machines, or as replacements for broken or worn records.

In fact, very few mechanical-feed machines seem to have been produced. ¹⁴ Those that were made had tonearms that pivoted to such a degree, they were still found by the courts to infringe the Berliner patent. In addition, the Leeds discs obviously could be played on any standard disc phonograph, with or without a mechanical feed, and there were no controls in place to ensure that the records would be sold strictly as replacements.

Defying Victor and the Courts

None of these ploys prevented Victor from finally bringing suit against Leeds & Catlin in April 1906, ¹⁵ claiming infringement of Victor’s Berliner patent. Hicks mounted an elaborately convoluted defense for Leeds, claiming among other things that the Berliner patent had expired by reason of the expiration of prior Berliner patents in Germany, France, and England. Furthermore, Hicks argued, the Berliner patent had been anticipated by Edison and Suess. Judge Townsend rejected all of Hicks’ arguments and granted a preliminary injunction that was upheld on appeal on October 12, 1906. ¹⁶

True to form, Leeds & Catlin simply ignored the injunction. Sales were booming, and Leeds was developing a strong business in subsidiary and client labels, issuing its masters under such brands as Century, Concert, Eagle, Silver Star, Sir Henri, Sun, and Symphony. None of these labels credited Leeds & Catlin, although most bore catalog numbers that were identical in the last three or four digits (e.g., Imperial and Sun 45222 = Eagle 15222 = Silver Star B-5222). The company also landed contracts to press Oxford discs for Sears Roebuck, and Aretino and Busy Bee discs for the O’Neill-James Company. Most of these Leeds products are easily recognized by the mirror-image stamping of Leeds’ matrix numbers and a distinctive “D” in the wax. ¹⁷

Many of Leeds' custom and client labels were works of art. Century is among the rarest.
Most of Leeds' custom discs carried a warning that they were for use only on
mechanical-feed machines, a ploy to skirt Victor's Berliner patent.

Leeds also launched a series of Imperial operatic records in 1906, featuring Oscar Braun, Florencio Constantino, Jean Note, Nino Piccaluga, and other notable Europeans, announcing them in an issue of the Talking Machine World. The records, which are extremely rare today, were pressed from Favorite masters recorded in Europe. As might be expected, the series did not go unchallenged. In the 1907 case of American Graphophone Company v. Leeds & Catlin Co. there is mention of “the making of duplicate copies of fully finished commercial foreign-made records.” Judge Lacombe, however, did not find this action to be an infringement. ¹⁸

No doubt seething over Leeds’ continued growth while defying a court order, Victor in late 1906 filed a motion to punish Leeds & Catlin for violation of injunction. ¹⁹ Judge Lacombe rejected Hicks’ contention that the Leeds records were restricted to use only on Leeds’ mechanical-feed phonographs and that their sale was justified under the purchaser’s right of repair and replacement. Leeds was found in contempt and fined $1,000 pending appeal.

Columbia and Victor continued their legal attacks on Leeds & Catlin throughout 1907 and 1908. Columbia brought suit again in the summer of 1907, charging that Leeds’ pressing of foreign-made masters was an infringement of the Jones patent. ²⁰ In an unusual loss for Columbia, Judge Lacombe disagreed and refused to issue a preliminary injunction, thus forcing Columbia to appeal. Victor brought suit again in late 1908, this time claiming infringement of Eldridge Johnson’s patent #739,318, which covered the application of paper labels to disc records. ²¹ Although these later suits might have appeared frivolous, they had the desired effect of draining Leeds & Catlin’s financial reserves.

In desperation, Louis Hicks—still attempting to have the Berliner patent voided on grounds of prior invention—appealed to Alexander Graham Bell. Writing to the aged inventor on September 13, 1907, Hicks noted,

“It would seem that the work done by you and your associates anticipated Mr. Berliner by several years... If you could spare me a few minutes of your time, I should be very much indebted to you because I know that you could give me very definite information. No doubt [your] models illustrate the lateral as well as the vertical disc form of record mentioned in the Volta Laboratory Description of 1881.” ²²

No aid would be forthcoming from Bell. Edward Leeds and George Rumpf made a final attempt to skirt the Berliner patent in January 1908, filing a patent application on a phonograph with stationary reproducer and traveling turntable, ²³ to no avail. The company even introduced double-sided pressings for several of its client labels, including Busy Bee, National, and D&R, but by 1909 its days were clearly numbered.

By 1909 Leeds had followed Columbia's and Victor's lead and was making double-sided pressings. They appeared on several client labels and are rare today.

Leeds in Bankruptcy

The final blow to Leeds & Catlin came in April 1909, with an adverse ruling in American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. et al. ²⁴ In the same month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Leeds in Leeds & Catlin Co., Petitioner, v. Victor Talking Machine Co. and United States Gramophone Co. ²⁵

On June 21, 1909, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against Leeds & Catlin. ²⁶ The Times reported that “wages of employees remain unpaid, rent has not been paid, and disposses proceedings are threatened.” Louis Bronner, attorney for the creditors, noted that large quantities of Leeds pressings had been sold, but that the buyers would not pay for them now, for fear of being involved in litigation. Bronner characterized Leeds’ remaining inventory as “practically valueless.” ²⁷

On June 22, Judge Learned Hand appointed Theodore Taft as receiver for the company. ²⁸ Among the creditors was the O’Neill-James Company, marketer of Busy Bee discs, which filed a claim for $35,000. ²⁹ Thomas F. Brown, a former sheriff, was also appointed as a temporary receiver to handle claims relating to the Middletown, Connecticut property. ³⁰ On August 10, most of Leeds’ property was disposed of at a bankruptcy auction in New York. Among the items listed for sale were Talk-O-Phone, Leeds, Imperial, Sun, Nassau, Concert, Symphony, and Sir Henri discs; cylinder masters and copper disc matrices; one disc and four cylinder-recording machines; an intriguing “grand opera with full Metropolitan Orchestra,” and, ironically enough, a Victor phonograph. ³¹

Following Leeds & Catlin’s demise, Columbia allowed some jobbers to exchange their now-unsaleable Leeds pressings, under various labels, for Columbia records. Columbia obtained a final ruling on damages in 1910, with Leeds & Catlin held accountable for $81,250.85 in damages for infringing Columbia’s Jones patent. For its troubles, Columbia received a stock of empty Talk-O-Phone cabinets, which it outfitted with its own works for several client machines in 1910. Columbia also acquired a quantity of Leeds & Catlin pressings, which it relabeled and sold under the old Sir Henri brand, an action that brought about an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against Columbia by Victor. ³²

Victor filed its final suit against Leeds & Catlin in June 1910, seeking a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court that could be of use in possible future cases of patent infringement.³³ Judge Hand declined to rule. Leeds’ remaining property was not disposed of until September 23, 1914, when it was auctioned to recover the cost of storage.³⁴

The Supreme Court's Leeds & Catlin ruling is still cited in court proceedings today, often in software-related cases. ³⁵

Edward F. Leeds later founded the Leeds Marine Equipment Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Member of a prominent Connecticut family, Leeds in later years relished the role of socialite, even serving for a time as commodore of the Stamford Yacht Club. He died on January 20, 1933. ³⁶

References

¹ American Graphophone Company vs. Cleveland Walcutt and Edward F. Leeds (U.S. Circuit Court, S.D. New York) In Equity. No.6542.

² American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds et al., 87 F. 873

³ “New Corporations.” New York Times (6/16/1899), p. 11

⁴ “Stockholders Meeting Notice.” New York Times (1/10/1900), p. 10

⁵ “Talk-O-Phone.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Label registration #38,668 (filed 5/10/1902).

⁶ “Learning Some New Ones.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Trademark application #3,544 (filed November 3, 1903).

⁷ “The Talk-O-Phone. Leeds Records” (advertisement). New York Times (12/20/1903), p. 22.

⁸ “Talk-O-Phone Records” (1904 catalog). The Talk-O-Phone Co., Toledo, OH.

⁹ “The Talk-O-Phone. Leeds Records” (advertisement). New York Times (12/6/1903), p. 22.

¹⁰ “Court Calendars.” New York Times (5/14/1904).

¹¹ American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin, et al., 131 F. 281

¹² “Leeds & Catlin Purchase New Factory.” The Music Trades (10/28/1905).

¹³ Gilmore, W.E. Letter to Frank L. Dyer (Orange, NJ: 3/30/1905). Edison National Historic Site.

¹⁴ The Talking Machine World for January 1906 featured advertising for a mechanical-feed Talk-O-Phone machine, an obvious attempt to circumvent Berliner’s patent. Most specimens that have been reported, however, lack any mechanical-feed device.

¹⁵ Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. April 26, 1906. 146 F. 534.

¹⁶ Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 12, 1906. 148 F. 1022

¹⁷ The meaning of the “D” mark remains unknown. It is not a take designation. On Victor records of the same period, an identical marking was used to designate masters cut on a Dennison recording machine, but it is not known if Leeds also employed Dennison equipment. It seems unlikely, given Wilburn Dennison’s close ties to Victor.

¹⁸ Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 11, 1907. 155 F. 427.

¹⁹ Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. January 5, 1907. 150 F. 147.

²⁰ American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 11, 1907. 155 F. 427.

²¹ Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, N.D. New York. December 22, 1908. 165 F. 931.

²² Hicks, Louis. Letter to Alexander Graham Bell (New York: 9/13/1907). Library of Congress, Washington, DC..

²³ Leeds, Edward F., and George Rumpf: “Phonograph.” U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Patent #897,836 (filed 1/18/1908).

²⁴ Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 1, 1909. 170 F. 327.

²⁵ Supreme Court of the United States. Argued January 18, 1909; decided April 19, 1909. 213 U.S. 325, 29 S.Ct. 503.

²⁶ “Leeds & Catlin Co. Fails.” New York Times (6/22/1909), p. 9.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ “Business Troubles.” New York Times (6/23/1909), p. 14.

²⁹ “Business Troubles.” NewYork Times (7/31/1909), p. 12

³⁰ “Receiver for Leeds & Catlin.” New York Times (6/24/1909), p. 9.

³¹ “Bankruptcy Sales.” New York Times (8/10/1909), p. 13.

³² Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 178 F. 577; reversed on appeal in American Graphophone Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 183 F. 580.

³³ Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. Circuit Court, S.D. New York. June 1, 1910. 180 F. 778.

³⁴ “Bankruptcy Sales.” New York Times (9/23/1914), p. 14.

³⁵ See the FindLaw site for a transcript of Judge McKenna's 1909 ruling, as well as a list of later cases in which this ruling is cited.