Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-10-03
The Real Estate Pool Suit.

THE ANSWER OF MESsRs. KILBOURN AND OIM-
sTEAD-THEIR EXPLANATION OF THE TRANS
ACTIONS IN OF ESTION.
Messrs. Hal,et kilbOurn and j. F. Olmstead
through their attorney, Col. Enoch Totten, on
Saturday filed their answer to the suit brought
against them by Messrs. Thomas Sunderland and
Curtis J. Hillyer. for an account and the paw
ment OF S25.UCO, and other sums of money
claimed to be due on account of several breaches
Oftrust in real estate transactions The defendants
aver that at the time of the transactions in
question their firm was composed of themselves
and James NJ Latta. They deny that the firm
was ever engaged or employed by the plaintiffs
and VIM. N. Stewart in any other manner
than that in which they transacted business
tor the general public; that there was any
understanding between the firm and these parties
touching the compensation that was to be paid
the firm for conducting transactions in the line
OF their business. They deny that it was agreed
between the parties that the firm should be
entrusted as agents of the plaintiffs and Stewart
for the purchase of real estate in any part of the
city. at discretion, and allege that they had ON
hand great many lots and pieces of land
for sale, and that i'm each instance
where the plaintiffs and Stewart purchased
from them, they were informed of the price be-
/ fore purchasing. and in nearly every instance
! Sunderland or Hiyer. or both, actually exam
ined the property; that the plaintiffs in every
/ instance relied upon their own judgment, and
/ decided whether to purchase property or not
!
Messrs. Sunderland and Hillyer that they had
/ been negotiating for square lis for about two
/ years. and that the lowest price for which they
/ (Nessrs Sunderland and Hillyer) could obtain
| the property was sos GOO. The firm had secured
the refusal of the property for $40 900 for their
own benefit and not for the benefit of any of it's
custOmers-an agreement which was made before
the firm had any dealings with the plaintiffs. The
defendants emphatically deny the charges of fraud
and cheating made against them, and that there
/ were any cOlcealments touching the business of
/ the firm. Other transactions between the firm
and the plaintiffs are similarly explained. They
/ deny that they were requested to purchase
square 15S. or any part of it, on account of the
/ plaintiffs and aver that they stated to the plain
tiffs that they We're ready and willing at any time to
take and pay for any lot or lots on the square at fifty
| cents per square foot. In regard to the pur-
chase OflOt II the alleges that the plaintiffs
had no information about 1t until the firm offered
| it to them at so cents per square
/ foot, which offer was accepted; that the
I property was owned by John Stearens, and the
| firm had never received anything on account of
| the transaction except ordinary commissions.
The defendants do not remember at whose sug-
gestion the conveyance in trust to James A.
Latta OF certain lots Was Na6erA After the re-
turn of the plaintin nom Europe To ~qdestion
Of compensation due the firm for the care and
management Of the property was discussed, but
not settled. Upon the dissolution Of the firm
| in 1876 the sum of 5000 was charged against
sunderland & Hillyer individually for services
rendered in managing their extensive property.
| w. Handy has made the following sale of unim-
proved property: Lots ~, %, "A, Is, IS and n,
In square AS, to johnson Bros, at IS cents per
foot; lot 81, Mount Pleasant, to Virginia Brews-
ter cents per foot; lots ~ to q, square CO. to
A. H. Stamp. at 10 cents per foot; lot 76, square
| 194, to John p. Lawrence at so cents per foot.
lot 80, Howard University, to ]. w. Watess,f foi