Established in 1937, Johnson Machine & Press Corp. was a relatively small manufacturer of punch presses, especially open-back inclinable (OBI) presses, in the range of 16 to 90 tons capacity. We have seen a claim that they were established in 1919; there is little doubt they were established in 1937, and the earlier date may be the starting date for some firm acquired by Johnson Machine & Press (though we do not know of any such acquisition).

In 1956 the Johnson Machine & Press Corp. was sold to Bontrager Corp. In 1962 Bontrager's assets were acquired by Amsted Industries, Inc., formerly American Steel Foundries, Inc. Bontrager also owned South Bend Lathe Works, and assigned the Johnson business over to them. The Johnson Machine & Press Corp. was formally dissolved in 1965 but that name continued to be used as a trade name for at least another decade. At some point in or before 1975, Bontrager was liquidated but that was years after they had sold Johnson Press and South Bend Lathe, Inc., to Amsted. The post-1975 history is murky but the Johnson Press name, if not their products, seem to have faded from view before 1980.

Information Sources

• 1953 Base Prices of Machine Tools by U. S. Office of Price Stabilization, pages 281-282. The Johnson Press presses listed are capacities (in tons) 16, 22, 27, 43, 56, 79 and 90.
• A 1979 lawsuit notes that Johnson had been in business in Elkart, Indiana since 1937, and were sold in 1956 to Bontrager Corp. In 1962 Bontrager's assets were acquired by Amsted Industries, Inc., formerly American Steel Foundries, Inc. Bontrager also owned South Bend Lathe Works, and assigned the Johnson business over to them. The Johnson business was formally dissolved in 1965 which had no effect on the continuing "Johnson Press" business being operated by South Bend Lathe. At some point in or before 1975, Bontrager was liquidated but that was years after they had sold Johnson Press and South Bend Lathe, Inc., to Amsted. The lawsuit involved product liability. The transfer of assets from Bontrager to Amsted specifically excluded product liability but US courts had ruled that such attempts to avoid past liabilities were not necessarily valid, and claims had to be evaluated on a number of factors including whether the acquiring company relied on the predecessor's reputation and goodwill, and whether they were in a better position than customers to identify and address safety concerns. In this instance, Amsted was found to be liable for past products.