From 1869 San Francisco Directory

By 1869 Berry & Place were advertising Woodworth planers and other woodworking machinery. By 1872 this firm was active as Berry & Place, an importer and dealer in woodworking machinery and related items. By 1879 they were known as Berry & Place Manufacturing Co., makers of woodworking machinery. They remained a dealer, for Frank & Co. of Buffalo, among other companies. They remained in business until at least 1888.

Information Sources

• Listing in San Francisco Directory for the Year 1872: "BERRY & PLACE (W. O. M. Berry and James F. Place) importers wood-working machinery, steam-pumps, water-wheels etc., 112 and 114 California." In the same issue is an ad for "TREADWELL & CO.". The officers were L. L. Treadwell, J. F. Place, and W. O. M. Berry in San Francisco, and H. W. Boardman in New York. The business is described as a "machinery and supply depot... Importers and Wholesale Dealers in Hardware, Portable Engines, Mills, Agricultural Implements, Wood-working and Iron-Working Machinery, Miners', Engineers' and Mechanics' Tools, Mill Supplies, etc." They were located at the corner of Market and Fremont streets. The listing for Treadwell & Co. lists Leonard L. Treadwell, William O. M. Berry, James F. Place and Henry W. Boardman.
• Ad in San Francisco Directory for the Year 1878: "BERRY & PLACE, Market st., head of Front, Machinery and Supplies. Mining tools, saw mills, steam pumps, stationary, portable and hoisting engines, wood and iron working machinery."
• Listed in San Francisco Directory for the Year 1879 as a maker of woodworking machinery.
• From the 1880-07-05 issue of the Sacramento Daily Record-Union:

  INCORPORATED—There has been filed with the Secretary of State certificates of incorporation as follows: Berry & Place Manufacturing Company. Directors, J. S. Sherburne, J. T. Place, B. Bradbury, W. O. M. Berry and Jonathan Kettridge. Place of business, San Francisco. Capital stock, $50,000, in 100 shares; all subscribed...

• From The Railroad, Telegraph, and Steamship Builders' Directory, 1888: a listing under wood-working machinery for "Berry & Place Machine Co., 8 California st., San Francisco, Cal."
• The lawsuit of A. H. Frank v. Lyman C. Parke et. al. was summarized in the appeal as follows:

  The action was brought to recover damages for breach of a contract of agency. The plaintiffs, Parke and Lacy, are San Francisco importers and dealers in machinery, etc., and the defendant, A. H. Frank, under the name of Frank & Co., is a manufacturer of planers and other wood-working machinery in Buffalo, New York. For some years prior to February, 1882, the Berry and Place Machinery Company and their predecessors had been the sole California agents for the sale of Frank's machines, but no period of continuance of agency had ever been fixed. Besides defendant's agency, the Berry and Place Machinery Company were also agents for two other Eastern manufacturers, the Lehigh Valley Emery Wheel Company, and R. W. Gardner & Co.

  On January 25, 1882, the Berry and Place Machinery Company addressed to Parke and Lacy, the plaintiffs, a written proposition to sell them for $2,700.47 its entire stock of goods and office fixtures, scheduled at $2,714.51, its lease of store and the good-will of is business, including the three agencies above mentioned, provided the Eastern principals should consent to the transfer of their agencies, and of their consigned goods then on hand unsold. On the same day, Parke and Lacy indorsed on this proposal their acceptance of its terms. The Berry and Place Machinery Company thereupon wrote to Frank of the proposed transfer, and that it depended on his consent. Not receiving a reply, the Berry and Place Machinery Company, on February 3, 1882, telegraphed Frank at Buffalo, ordering two thousand dollars' worth of new machinery, asking if tho same could be shipped immediately, and requesting a reply to the previous letter. On the next day the Berry and Place Machinery Company received two dispatches from Frank in reply, one reading: "We consent to transfer stock [onJ condition you settle for all not transferred. Can fill order two weeks." The second dispatch read: "Will leave for San Francisco next Monday. Accept your proposition."

  Frank reached San Francisco about February 16th, and held two interviews with plaintiffs at their place of business between that date and February 20th, regarding the proposed transfer. He insisted that the Berry and Place Machinery Company should first pay him a balance due for machines sold and unaccounted for, and ha was told that he would be paid out of the money which Parke and Lacy were to pay for the business. At the second interview, on February 20th, he consented verbally to the transfer, and promised to forward the two thousand dollars' worth of machinery ordered February 3d, as soon as possible.

  Parke and Lacy immediately paid the Berry and Place Company $2,400.47, in accordance with the arrangement of January 26th, and the further sum of $964.57, freights advanced on consigned goods still on hand, and took an assignment of the Berry and Place Machinery Company's lease, placing their salesman in charge of the premises, and of the consigned goods and stock in trade. Out of this money, Frank was paid by the Berry and Place Machinery Company what it owed him. As soon as defendant consented to the transfer, and at the same interview, he proposed to draw up a memorandum of agreement, to be signed by both plaintiffs and defendant, setting out the terms of agency. He sat down and draughted an agreement, which plaintiffs objected to, and they then drafted another in the form of a communication addressed to themselves, to be signed by him, to which he objected. After considerable discussion he began to sign his name, wrote his first two initials, "A. H.," then rose, said he was unduly excited, and would like to see Mr. Hendy, and then would come directly back and sign it He put the paper in his pocket, left the store, and did not return. He left for the East next day, without again seeing plaintiffs, who did not hear from him again until March 3, 1882, when they received a dispatch from him, dated at Buffalo, saying: "I have concluded to give exclusive agency to Gregory" (meaning H. P. Gregory & Co., dealers in machinery at San Francisco"). Plaintiffs shortly afterward brought this suit, claiming as damages the purchase-money paid the Berry and Place Machinery Company, expense of advertising, rent, and employees, loss of profits on the order for two thousand dollars' worth of machinery which was not filled, and damage to their business credit and reputation. At the trial, defendant introduced no evidence.

  Plaintiffs recovered a verdict for $4,843.90. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied by the court upon the plaintiffs remitting all of the judgment in excess of three thousand one hundred dollars, for which last amount judgment was finally entered. Defendant brings this appeal from the judgment and order denying a new trial. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

  The Supreme Court of the State of California reversed the judgement and ordered a new trial.
• An owwm.org forum discussion about a planer made by San Francisco firm Isaac H. Small & Son has a knife stamped "Made by A. Hankey Co., in Rochdale, Mass for Berry & Place, San Francisco, Cal." The ad shown above, i.e, on this page you are now reading on the history of Berry & Peace, shows a planer identical to the one made by Isaac H. Small, and presumably was made by them.