Document k6vx5bm4B7GXBV7LXnQkbZeYb

DEU-l-AW-4- A St andar d Oie Co mpany o f New Jersey Ed'wtn' S. Hal l \7CEPHESIDEST&CQU^SEI. Geor ge H.Towek Geor ge F.JKo\VAasr> Rober t FLSchol l I l -k e -\\TFixi-AY J . Ir a nch Da r by Roy C.^Wil soy COUNSEL 2 6 BROADvray N w Y o r k December 31 19^0 He: ^ vs: Standard et al Doctor Robert A. Kehoe Kettering Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Doctor Kehoe:- Probably I an disgustingly negligent in not having previously told yon of the developments in the case in South Carolina in which you rendered such able assi^anceV You will recall that at the second trial the jury found a ver dict in favor of our co-defendant, the filling station lessee, but found a verdict against us in the amount of $60,000. We appealed to the Supreme Court and in October, 1939 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and sent the case back for a new trial. The Supreme Court sustained the conclusion of the Court below that the relation ship of employer and employee did not exist between Eubbard and the Standard Oil Company. It gave the plaintiff leave to amend his com plaint. If he had amended,'it would have given us a clearer cpport- unity to remove the case to the Federal Court. He did not amend but v.re have attempted to remove the case to the Federal Court. That attempt has not been litigated. We are none too sure it will be suc cessful. There aren't any indications when, if ever, the legal en tanglements into which this case has fallen will be cleaned up and a third trial had,. The result of all the foregoing is that our record is still clean. We haven't suffered3 a judgment-by anyone claiming he.,,was, injured; . through the use' of gasoline containing tetraethyl lead. With best of the Season1s Gre I am, ESH ME