Benutzer:Chief tin cloud/Karl Hamlen Martin

Karl Hamlen Martin (* 31. Januar 1888 in Buffalo (New York); † 8. Juli 1954) in Bennington (Vermont) war war ein US-amerikanischer Unternehmer und Ingenieur. Er entwarf Automobilkarosserien für eine exklusive Kundschaft und war Chefdesigner

Martin-Wasp Corporation Gordon Buehrig

http://www.coachbuilt.com/des/m/martin/martin.htm

refs Bearbeiten

Kenworthy (USA, Mishawaka IN) 1920-1921
Roamer Motor Car Company

Herkunft und Jugend Bearbeiten

Karl Hamlen Martin was born on January 31, 1888 to Dr. Truman J. and Lora (Hamlen) Martin in Buffalo, New York. After attending Buffalo’s Nichols School through the eighth grade, he then embarked on a course of study at St. Paul’s School in Concord, New Hampshire, graduating in 1905. Karl H. Martin recalled that he learned to drive on his father’s Columbia electric at the age of nine.

Unfortunately Martin was unable to see the results of Dodge’s efforts as he died soon afterwards. The Thursday July 8, 1954 New York Times recorded Karl H. Martin’s passing:

“Karl H. Martin, founder of the old Martin-Wasp Corporation, sports car and auto body manufacturers, died yesterday. His age was 66.”

Martin actually died on Tuesday morning, July 6, 1954 and not the following Wednesday as reported in the Times. The Bennington Banner also carried a small obituary, stating the he passed away “after a long illness”.

Zusammen mit seinem älteren Bruder William Doud Packard begründete er 1890 in Warren, Ohio die Packard Electric Company. Ab 1899 baute er gemeinsam mit ihm und weiteren Partnern Automobile unter seinem Namen. Daraus ging später die Packard Motor Car Company hervor.

Kriegsdienst Bearbeiten

Martin diente als Freiwilliger im 1. Weltkrieg. In seiner aktiven Zeit von 1916-1919 lehrte er Rekruten der US Navy Zeichnen. Er diente zunächst im Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Chicago (Illinois) und wurde dann zur Curtiss Aviation Corporation nach Garden City ( Long Island, New York) versetzt wo er in der gleichen Funktion tätig war.

http://www.coachbuilt.com/des/m/martin/martin.htm

Karosserien Bearbeiten

Dorris Bearbeiten

At the end of hostilities he returned to Chicago and continued designing bespoke bodies for Chicago’s automobile dealers, one of which was a special 1918 Dorris town car painted "Mist-o-Marne" blue.

http://www.coachbuilt.com/des/m/martin/martin.htm

Deering Magnetic Bearbeiten

He was also retained by the Magnetic Motors Corporation to design the radiator shell and bodywork of the Deering-Magnetic automobile, one of a number of new vehicles that were built using the Entz-patent electro-magnetic transmission. Coincidentally, Martin had earlier designed coachwork for Raymond M. and Ralph Owen, the Manhattan-based automobile dealers who financed the construction of the first successful vehicle to use the Entz transmission, the Owen-Magnetic.

Martin recollected his impression of the Deering-Magnetic to historian Keith Marvin: “The Deering-Magnetic should have caught on, it had a better design and was as well built, if not better built, than the Owen-Magnetic. It sold for a considerably lesser price too, and was a beautiful appearing car.”

http://www.coachbuilt.com/des/m/martin/martin.htm

Owen Magnetic Bearbeiten

The following transcript of a 1916 court case is interesting in that it gives us insight into the professional relationships that existed between car dealer – R.M. Owen; body designer – Karl H. Martin; and coach builder - 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.”

http://www.coachbuilt.com/des/m/martin/martin.htm

Kenworthy Bearbeiten

Kenworthy

Martin Wasp Bearbeiten

Literatur Bearbeiten

Beverly Rae Kimes (Herausgeberin), Henry Austin Clark jr.: Standard Catalogue of American Cars 1805-1942. 2. Auflage. Krause Publications, Iola WI (1985), ISBN 0-87341-111-0. (Englisch)
Beverly Rae Kimes: Pioneers, Engineers, and Scoundrels: The Dawn of the Automobile in America. Herausgeber SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Permissions, Warrendale PA 2005, ISBN 0-7680-1431-X (Hardcover). (Englisch)
Richard v. Frankenberg / Marco Matteucci: Geschichte des Automobils (1973), Sigloch Service Edition / STIG Torino; ohne ISBN
Hans-Otto Neubauer (Hrsg.): Chronik des Automobils (1994), Chronik Verlag im Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, Gütersloh/München; ISBN 3-570-14338-4
Harald H. Linz, Halwart Schrader: Die große Automobil - Enzyklopädie. 100 Jahre Geschichte. 2500 Marken aus 65 Ländern, 2. Auflage (1992); BLV Buchverlag München, Wien und Zürich; ISBN-10: 3405129745; ISBN-13: 978-3405129743, gebundene Ausgabe
G. N. Georgano (Hrsg.): Complete Encyclopedia of Motorcars, 1885 to the Present; Dutton Press, New York, 2. Auflage (Hardcover) 1973, ISBN 0-525-08351-0 (Englisch)
Brierley, Brooks T.: Auburn, Reo, Franklin and Pierce-Arrow versus Cadillac, Chrysler, Lincoln and Packard; 1. Auflage, Garrett & Stringer, Inc. Coconut Grove, Florida, ISBN 0-961-5791-1-0 (Englisch)
Tad Burness: American Car Spotter’s Guide, 1920-39; Motorbooks International, ISBN 0-87938-026-8 (Englisch)

Weblinks Bearbeiten

[[Kategorie:Ingenieur, Erfinder, Konstrukteur]] [[Kategorie:Fahrzeugdesigner]] [[Kategorie:Unternehmer]] [[Kategorie:US-Amerikaner]] [[Kategorie:Geboren 1888]] [[Kategorie:Gestorben 1954]] [[Kategorie:Mann]] {{Personendaten |NAME=Martin, Karl Hamlen |ALTERNATIVNAMEN= |KURZBESCHREIBUNG=US-amerikanischer Automobildesigner und Unternehmer |GEBURTSDATUM=31. Januar 1888 |GEBURTSORT= [[Buffalo (New York)]] |STERBEDATUM=8. Juli 1954 |STERBEORT= [[Bennington (Vermont)]] }}