Foreword: In profiling some 750 stories of people involved in the U.S. liquor trade I have been struck by the traditional togetherness of whiskey families: sons working with fathers, brothers working with brothers, wives assisting husbands, in-laws collaborating. Upon occasion, however, situations arise in which family unity is shattered by situations involving internal bickering, jealousy, or apparent greed. Profiled here are three such cases involving internecine feuds.
On January 16, 1902, seven jurists of the Court of Appeals in Annapolis heard a case that pitted quarreling members of a wealthy family and their high powered attorneys disputing over the operation and future direction of a well known Maryland distillery. The Wight family internal feud had been the “talk” of Baltimore society for months.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEv_Ea1-haK6YOQlDbLCmd8ktyUDwnkQ29qr_pLIXo3RERxDZex-JzVH2u3FfVs7f9RZziZ96YQcIs6nH8qAuOgklwW4DLAm2IJmfd0Rh_aL3JHRUh-dIMLlov5vkwbPzRbs9PIq1mpIxD/s200/+1.+Sherwood%252791+Directory+Ad*.jpg-%2BL.jpg)
Family solidarity began to unravel when John J. Wight died. His estate transferred most of his stock to his son, John Hyatt Wight, who became secretary and treasurer of Sherwood Distilling, with Hyatt as president. In 1894, Edward Hyatt died. John Hyatt Wight became president of the company. Hyatt’s widow Charlotte, who had remarried, in 1899 filed a lawsuit against her nephew, accusing him of fraud. Daily vs. Wight became a much-watched case in the Maryland courts.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRe5xQ3Ohyphenhyphen5_Xl9eGhO_22UqIrMu_4tKYcZ6gFdJcOOMD48YO4c1rjF-xXdDfykBqJKQF6Icv5HyjfLjzwOIJNxCt805IEI_ItXwODW7zHpCDfw4oKwgFMumlDTlcM17mViNP9bicWVUNa/s320/+3.+Sherwood+flask*.jpg-%2BR.jpg)
Trademark disputes over liquor branding never failed to gain attention in the pre-Prohibition era. When the conflict involved brother against brother in the distilling hotbed of Louisville, Kentucky, interest could be intense. That is the situation that faced the Bonnie brothers when one of their siblings broke away, started a completing company, and merchandised whiskey with the Bonnie name and a familiar-looking label.
The Bonnies were four: Frank W., born 1840; William O., 1845; Robert T., 1848, and Ernest S., 1860. All of them settled in Kentucky where Frank founded a liquor wholesale house about 1872 in Louisville and brought in brothers William and Robert. In 1879 the firm reorganized and all four Bonnies, including youngest brother Ernest, were included in its operations. The resulting “Bonnie Bros. Co.” became prosperous, thrusting the brothers into the forefront of Kentucky whiskey men.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Nz6MNVZnQVJJR5NmrL9caADYirjFHzHKvKzpMY8lJrEcDjwM1gXNvXvMVJZInNrYcErEBCGFGD5vw4rYZHAdTmkXKGEcp4-j6tMQclve0YGW4B-GtVrAoCBYnPlaXCTpTFe7y79NtZjW/s320/+5.+Wooden+sign-+dist.-+C.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6rMXXzZCA_9oVdRX6cncTKvMHuy9MGeSD98Zs_IgaVDfXOuY6c_GAB_4cBrsbH5GLbg-Br2v2b3WmY21B_2QIlE8az3FEgMnwTVvNXPHi1_paQDdDRvOZ0N41oktY_bnhs1mbXuK1R3I9/s320/6.+E+S+Bonnie+card+-+l.jpg)
When Ernest died in 1907 on 47 years old, his employees, now the owners, attempted to market a “Bonnie & Co. Rye” with a label that was very similar in its features to the original firm. William and Robert Bonnie had had enough and in 1914 took their competitor to court for trademark infringement. Kentucky courts asserted that Bonnie & Co. Rye had been labeled in a way to confuse and deceive consumers, represented “unfair competition” under the trademark laws, and issued a “cease and desist order.” The Bonnies won.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8xadEs_uVwt2Hp_WPadVdqbhAwHKSrxvzuccnmCkv3L9oCRR742c4OfWAu8PNlJ_Kafm6-13zfjY8k2gm3qqTlBBZLy7LxSVIM8oaDEK9e_oUkquC6AjZ8zWRegis-NS0pg4IZPuQeSsb/s320/7.+Antique-NETTER-BROS-Advertising-Stoneware-Jug-Wine-_R.jpg)
The first brother to defect appears to have been Henry. In 1893 directories Henry H. Netter & Co. was noted as: “Producers of California and Ohio wines and brandies and Pennsylvania rye whiskies.” The next Netter to break away was David in 1898, opening a separate store on Market Street. He was listed in business directories as a wine & liquor dealer, importer, distiller and proprietor of “Telegram Rye.” Seligman, perhaps about 1900, opened his own liquor outlet under the name “S. Netter.” He located at several addresses on North Third Street until 1911 when he moved to 736 Arch Street.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwqjRN3Pj62GjQmzAQBYvTMSJYTElckcPU8qf-lknUUlGxKsAKVnxMQ3uTZMaT3bNPedUrQipbagL_rGOtIl1PVt61ZbHZeE1WMS_SprUIkmE6p_ovHPjDaV5gd4VoeFGwdFZF3eyEkBwE/s320/9.+T.+Netter.jpg+R.jpg)
Was Theodore the problem child who broke up the Netter Brothers? He had a penchant for running afoul of the Pure Food and Drug laws, being fined at least twice for adulterating his wines. Nevertheless, this Netter claimed that his was, “the largest and leading liquor store” in Philly. In his advertising Theodore also constantly emphasized that he had only one store -- indicating that he saw his brothers in definite competition. Because the Netters never took their differences into court and aired them publicly, however, the reason why the brothers all went their separate ways remains unanswered.
Note: More complete vignettes on each of these families can be found elsewhere on this blog: Sherwood Distilling and the Wights, July 17, 1911; Bonnie Brothers, April 29, 2014, and Netter Brothers, January 2, 2013.
Note: More complete vignettes on each of these families can be found elsewhere on this blog: Sherwood Distilling and the Wights, July 17, 1911; Bonnie Brothers, April 29, 2014, and Netter Brothers, January 2, 2013.