Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-03-09
El8,I55 u
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ADOPTED


The Finance Committee, to whom was re
ferred the petitions Of james J. Waring ct al
and A. q. Guerard. for reduction Of valuation
in certain property, beg leave to report tina
they consider il unwise at this time to change
old valuations. They therefore report adverse
Is 10 the petitions. SAMUEL p. HAMILTON,
Chairman Finance Committee.
The Committee on Water Works, TO whom
was referred the petition OF II. Nj. {. Smitl
and others for extension Of water main OF
Gwinnett street, report fayorably to the same
DAVID WELLS,
Chairman Committee on Water Works.
The Committee on Water Works, to whom
was referred the petition OF /. ID. LaRoche
agent, asking that a portion Of amount paiC
for water tax at l75 Bryan street, be refunded
report unfavorably to the same.
Chairman Committee on Water Works.
The Finance Committee, to whom was re-
ferred the petition OF J, w. McAlpin, eXeeu-
tor, relative to valuation OF lot No, Decker
ward, report that they referred the matter tC
the Board OF Assessors, and, upon their re-
port. recommend that the valuation be placed
at the sum of eight thousand dollars.
SAMUEL p. HAMILTON,
Chairman Finance Committee.
The committee to whom. at the last meeting
Of Council, the petition of Christopher Muir
ply in reference to the proceeds of sale Of lot
No. So Brown ward, was referred, beg leave 10
make the following report:
That lot No. So Brown ward was held under
the usual ground rent conditional deed. That
q re-entry was made by the city authorities
upon said lot for condition broken the effect
OF which was to revest in the city the title TO
the lot and the improvements according TO
the decision of the Supreme Court in SwOll
VS.. Oliver. 81 Ga. Rep. p. 24s.
Subsequent to the re-entry, the lot, with i'm
proyements, was sold by the city on 9TH June,
1881, in pursuance OF resolution or Council,
and conveyance was made by the city 10 the
purchasers. The purchase money was paid
into the Treasury.
Bv the resolution of Council under which
the sale took place. il seems to have, been pro-
vided that should the sale Of said property re-
alize more than the amount of the taxes and
ground rent due the city thereon, the over
plus should be paid to the person or persons
entitled TO the same.
This would.indicate that the city, whatever
her strict right might be under the re-entry,
did not mean to appropriate to itself the en-
tire proceeds of the sale. Mr. Murphy sub
sequently, as trustee for his children, on 9th
June, 1881, filed his bill in the Superior Court
OF Chatham county, setting up the facts Of
re-entry and sale by the city, and asking a
decree requiring the city to pay over to him,
as trustee for his children, the oyerplus OF the
funds after dedHetiDg ground rent and taxes,
claiming as such trustee TO be the person en-
titled 20 receive the same.
The city by its answer submitted itself to
the decree Of the court.
II appears by the bin and answer, as well
as otherwise, that this lot, IS Brown
ward, was conveyed to Christopher Murphy
on I'd April, 1870, by Banks, trustee, who held
mediately from the city under the ground
rent deed in trust for the sole use of his wife,
Mary +. Murphy, during her life, and after
her death, for the use OF such child or children
OF the said Christopher and Mary K. as may
be then living.
Mrs. Murphy died prior to the re-entry,
leaving children who are still minor, as fol-
lows: Christopher, Michael w. 9. and James
A. The bill was sworn TO by MIR. Murphy,
and it appears that an order OF court was en-
tered making Mr.. Murphy pro CHEN ami for
said children, who were named as parties to
the bill.
A decree of court was made declaring that
upon the Fe-entry the title to the lot and i'm
vested in the city, and that the
trust of Murphy was thereby ended. The de-
cree went further, however, and declared
that the children OF Mr. Murphy are the
proper persons to receive any fund that the
Mayor and Aldermen may elect to turn over,
and that their guardians duly appointed were
the persons to receive it for them.
The effect OF this decree may POSSIBLY be TO
preclude the city from any option IN the mat
ter as 10 what it shall do with TINS money. The
children having been parties to this proceed
ing might have the right TO insist under the
decree that the city is concluded upon TINS
question.
The decree is silent upon the question
whether the death of Mrs. Murphy put
an end to the trust, and II that
did not YOUR committee can see no reason
why the city should insist upon putting the
Dverplns of the purchase money upon any
other status than the property was held be-
fore re-entry.
But the difficulty in doing that is the decree
10 which we have referred, and your commit
lee think it would not be safe for the city to
make any other disposition OF THESE FUNDS
han that provided IN the decree, unless I'M
ier another decree or order Of the court, in
which the children shall be parties, authoriz-
ng it. But we do think II proper ana right
or the CITY to declare. If 1t has the legal power
% do SO, that this fund shall stand upon the
anne uses and trusts as the property stood
lefOre the re-entry.
IL is necessary for us to report, however,
hat bill in equity is now pending In the SUI
)erior Court of this county, in which 4. Is.
Lawrence and others are compliments, pray
ne that half Of this fund be PAID 10 them
W the city under some claim set up by them,
md that an injunction temporary has been
-ranted against the city restraining the pay
nent of half the funds to any one else. rms
ase we learn win be for trial at the Marcn
ERIN.