Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-07-16
A VERDICT FOR MURPHY.
THE CITY CHARGED WITH OVER
$1,000.

$1,000.
An Interesting Case Coneladed-The
story OF a Ground Rent Lot and What
1t CoSt-How the Case was Brought
Into the Courts.
The trial Of the case Of Proctor b. Law
renee and others and the Mayor and Al
dermen Of the city Of Savannah and 9TH
ers, defendants, Christopher Murphy ap-
pearing as claimant IN equity, was con-
cluded in the Superior Court yesterday.
The Jury rendered a verdict in favor Of the
claimant for the net balance arising from
the sale Of lot No. IS Brown ward. The
Jury did not allow the claimant any dam
ages. The case was on trial over seven
days, and excited great deal OF attenc
ton. As the questions lnVoiFeo aIe u
Interest to every holder Of ground
rent property in the city, the history OF
the case is full Of interest
In 1891 the Mayor and Aldermen OF
Savannah sold 70 Mrs. Caroline l.. Fraser
lot No 30 Brown ward, the premises ln
dispute 1t was sold under an ordinance
then in force, which provided for the sale
an lots in the ward for the ground rent,
which was about SIS year. The law at
the time OF the sale 70 Mrs. Fraser
was that If the ground rent was
not paid according to the deed, that the
city should have the right 70 re-enter LOT
the purpose Of collecting the amount Of
money which might be due tor the rent
III il was found necessary to sell, the
ordinance required that the properly
should be put up first for lease, and the
city would attempt to lease II
for one wear, then for two years,
then for three years and so on up to ten
years, and if it could not be leased then
| il was 70 be sold upon the same terms
UDOn which it was originally sold to Mrs.
Fraser. About 1850 Mrs. Fraser died,
! leaving a will. in which this lot with
| other property was left 70 her sister, Miss
Rebecca POOler, subject to an
annuity of $500, payable to
Miss PooIer Stewart during her life
time. There was no executor named IN
/ the will. and Robert W. PoOler admins
/ tered uDOu the estate. with the viii an
nexed. Miss Rebecca POoler died soon
| after. leaving Robert W. POOler her sole
heir. The latter did not pay Miss Stewart
any Of the annuity. nor did he finish the
administration Of Mrs. Fraser's Will. He
died in 1854, leaving as his heirs his wife,
| Mary J. POoleT, and his granddaughter,
/ G. NJ. F. Pooler. Mary J. Pooler admin
l istered on the estate OF X. W. POOler, and
afterwards administered upon the estate
/ OF Mrs. Fraser, with her will annexed.
/ Miss POoIer Stewart, about the years
| 1S57 or 1855. through Messrs. LLOYD
& Owens, served Mary j. Pooler,
/ the administrative, of Mrs. Fraser,
| with her bill for the sum OF Sl,2O0 due her
| for her annuity up to the death OF X. w.
/ POoler, who had never paid her anything
/ on account of the will. After admins
/ tration she had paid this annuity regular
/ w. and the decree Of the court was that
/ Miss POoIer Stewart recover from Mary }.
/ Pooler the administrators of the will OF
! Mrs. Fraser, the sum Of $1,000, with in
/ terest from some time in 1858, and the
/ further sum Of $500 thereafter during her
| life. and that the decree be kept open so
/ that Miss Stewart could at any time issue
| an execution to recover it. In 1853 Mary
/ J. POoler. the ADMINISTRATIVE owing to TINS
| decree, and owing two years ground rent on
/ lot No. - Brown ward, addressed a petit
! ton in her own behalf and in behalf OF G.
| NJ. f. POOler, asking the Chancellor Tor
! leave to sell the lot for the purpose OF
/ paving the debts Of the estate for Mrs.
| bench of the Superior Court,
granted the order to sell at
| private sale, provided the property
/ should be sold for not less than $4,000.
| Under this decree the property was sold
to John +. Tucker, trustee for Mrs. Or.
! W. IL. Banks. He paid $1,000 cash and
/ gave two notes for the remainder for
| L.
! gage on the property. Mrs. Pooler
| received the cash and the notes
as administrative Of Mrs. Fraser's
/ will. From the proceeds Of the sale
she paid Messrs. Lloyd & Owens, the
/ solicitors for Miss Stewart, the sum Of
! s.. 600 cash, and one of the notes Of John
| +. Tucker for s.. $50 and got receipt for
the same, on account of said decree. The
balance Of the money she appropriated to
the payment of the debts OF
r. W. POOler, and grandfather Of
&. NJ. +. POOler, who is the mother of the
| Lawrence children, now claiming half
! interest in the property for the reason
that Judge Fleming had no right to
/ pass a decree permitting NJ. j. POoler
| to sell the property. DIR. Banks
! afterwards became trustee in place
Of Mr.. Tucker, and he held the prop
erty until 1870, when he sold it to
/ Christopher Murphy for $1,000. Murphy
| settled il upon himself as trustee for his
| wife for life. and after her death for his
and her children. He held this property
| until the fall of 1880, when, as testified by
| Drs. Read and Num-, he became
physically and mentally incapable
| to attend to business on account Of
an abscess which had formed in his head.
! The property became indebted to the city
for ground rent and taxes, and Mr.. Muir
ply offered the property for sale, but
| was unsuccessful in selling 1t, because 1t
! was rumOred that the Lawrence children
| might make claim for it.
| He reported his condition to the City
| Council, which was pressing him
! for his ground rent and taxes, and re-
| quested it to sell the property upon the
| usual conditions, pay itself what was due
| and give him the surplus. This, he UNI
| derstoOd, the city had agreed to, and after
| the sale he requested the city to pay him
/ the difference. and he filed in court an
/ amicable bill for that purpose.
The city answered this bill, denying
that they sold the property under any
agreement or understanding with Murphy,
| and claimed that they sold 1t strictly
under the deed to Mrs. Fraser and under
the law. They also claimed that when
| they re-entered upon the property 1t be-
came absolutely the property of the city.
/ That they had right to dispose of it as
| they pleased, and that the proceeds OF the
sale belonged TO the city alone, which
| they also could dispose of as they pleased.
| They further claimed that Murphy ceased
to be trustee upon the death of his wife,
aud that he could not have any interest
| in the proceeds of the sale of the lot, and
that they would give the surplus to his
| children when a guardian should be reg
ularly appointed for them. Murphy,
as trustee, declined to recognize the
| claim of the city, but the
/ Judge OF the superior court. however, &C
| cepted the version Of the law and Of the
facts as presented by the city in its
answer and passed decree in July, 1881,
sustaining it in every particular. In
| September, the same year, Proctor b.
| Lawrence, who had married q. NJ. I.
PoOler, for himself as guardian for his two
children, filed bill in the Superior Court
claiming that he and his children were
entitled to One-half the proceeds of the
sale. and that. according to the custom
of the city, the proceeds of the sale of
/ ground rent lots, after deducting what
was due the city, was always paid to the
| person who owned the property at the
| time. Murphy, as trustee, declined
To notice the bill, and the court appointed
him guardian dd liteR for his children
] in tho case As sueh Guardian