Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-BarrettCo.
The Hoyland-Lemlewas established in 1922, named after Charles L. Hoyland and William H. Lemle. The firm was first mentioned by Thomas G. Moses when they rented the Sosman & Landis main studio their first year. The Hoyland-Lemle Co. ended in 1926, with two new firms emerging as competitors. By 1927, there was William Lemle Inc. and Charles L. Hoyland Co. Over the next three years, Hoyland, Lemle and Moses were still associated with the old studio, working at 417 S. Clinton St.Lemle became associated with the National Theatre Supply Co., as did Moses by the late 1920s.
In 1927, Moses wrote, “Another rumor that the National Theatre Supply Co. will take over our old Studio. Lemle is interested and wants me to come with him.” It would take a year of cajoling, but Lemle eventually got Moses on board. By June 1928, Moses wrote, “I have agreed to join Lemle at our old Studio, which will pay me from $8,000 to $10,000 a year.” This did not mean that Moses was solely working for Lemle or the National Theatre Supply Co., this was just a side gig. Moses continued to represent Sosman & Landis until 1931. In short, work was scarce and the firm was struggling, like many others were at this time. Their work was varied, ranging from small motion picture screens ($95.00 each for the Raub and Roosevelt buildings in Allentown, PA) to a massive stock scenery collections ($36,000 for the Oakland Scottish Rite). After 1931, Moses was associated with both William H. Lemle and Walter Armstrong. It was Lemle, however, who bought the remaining Sosman & Landis stock.
In 1931, Moses wrote, “Have sold my Sosman and Landis Company stock to Lemle, which will be paid to me monthly. I am at last free from that trouble. Landis has also sold his to Lemle.” It was a sad end to his 51-yrs. relationship with the old firm. His $6,000 in Sosman & Landis stock was sold for only $1,000. This meant that the last remnants of Sosman & Landis were absorbed by the William Lemle Inc. However, the firm was still operating in 1940, six years after Moses’ passing. 1940 is the last mention of Sosman & Landis installations that I have located in newspapers to date.The scenic studio shuffle in the 1920s becomes more interesting when you consider the three men working at 417 S. Clinton St.– Moses, Lemle and Hoyland.
Thomas G. Moses was drawn to the theatre industry as an artist. William H. Lemle entered the profession as an actor. There is something to be said for those who experience the performance side before working on the production end or running a studio. Although neither Lemle nor Moses came from theatre families, the profession offered an enjoyable opportunity to escape ad profit. Charles L. Hoyland did not start and an artist or performer. He went from box office to management without every performing or working backstage. He represents a third group of those from non-theatrical families who were drawn to theater. Hoyland saw theater as an opportunity for profit, a businessman and not an artist; it was a numbers game. This is not meant to say that any one desire is less than the other when individuals entered the theatre industry. However, it does shape that individual’s perspective and approach to a theatre production or project.
A studio owner without any experience on stage or behind the scenes may not fully understand the intricacies of design, production and installation. The underlying motive may be solely profit and not a professional product. I think that this is one of the reasons that Hoyland and Lemle went their separate ways by 1927, and Moses stuck with Lemle.
