The sale of the Dodgers made headlines in sports sections in recent weeks, but nobody seems to mention the 25% minority share owned by the heirs of Ed McKeever, Charles Ebbets’ partner. (Ebbetts and Ed McKeever died in 1925; Steve McKeever died in 1938; Steve’s heirs continued to hold the 25% share.)
Steve McKeever, according to sports author Paul Zimmerman, “would no more think of selling her interest in the team than she would of flying without an airplane.”
So I’d like to know: Do Steve McKeever’s heirs still own that 25 percent interest?
I meant, “the daughter of Steve McKeever would no more think…”
That portion of the ownership was ultimately controlled by Dearie Mulvey, McKeever’s daughter.
She eventually sold her shares in the Dodgers to Walter O’Malley in 1975.
The top player in spring training for the Dodgers each year wins the Dearie Mulvey Award.
Is there a point ?
To own a team you have to hold 51% of the shares in circulation. That has been proven, or rather cofirmed by Abramovich, when he bought Chelsea FC, by purchasing the parent company Chelsea Village. Whether one, or a dozen people have 49%, is of absolutely no concern.
But more on topic, I doubt they’ll sell their share, considering, that it’s perhaps the best investment in history - in 6 years, the price of the team rose by 80 mil, and that’s with bad ownership, and not the best track record.
I had been less concerned about a “point” than the plain answer to my question.
I read a book titled Dodger Daze and Knights, in which it said that Steve McKeever, outliving Ebbetts as he did by 13 years, was adamant in refusing to sell his 25% share, and at least until the 70s his daughter continued the position.
It’s a pity that the Dodgers have gone the way of most professional sports teams and succumbed to corporate control (i. e., Rupert Murdoch) that has wrecked the image of sports. It makes the Supreme Court decision handed down by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1922 all the more embarrassing (“baseball is not ‘interstate commerce’.”)
In the early years of the 20th Century the National League was going to adopt a syndicated format (see Lee Allen’s The National League Story). I wouldn’t be suprised if corporate groupthink pulled that stunt now. 
Except the Dodgers aren’t owned by News Corp (i.e. Fox). Fox sold its majority stake to Boston real estate developer Frank McCourt in a highly leveraged deal. News Corp still holds a stake, but it is not a controlling interest and is no longer involved in the daily management of the team.
Ownership can also be divided into full (voting) and limited (nonvoting) shares, and it’s possible for the market value of limited shares to add up to more than the voting shares. One part-owner of the New York Yankees once commented, “There is nothing more limited than being a limited partner of George Steinbrenner.”
If the McKeever shares were limited, it wouldn’t matter how much of the team they represented.
That sounds like something the SEC should investigate.
Meanwhile, Steinbrenner’s limtations are limitless. 
I don’t think Dearie Mulvey’s holdings were limited regarding voting. She just didn’t mind the trip out to Los Angeles. I’m sure she enjoyed the very large checks she received from Walter O’Malley.