Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-02-10
To the Public.

SAVANNAH, Jan. 10, IsS4.-The following
decision, among others promulgated by the
Supreme Court of the State Of Georgia on the
2lst day of December, 1888, and published in
the MORNING NEWS of the 9th, same month
and year, l desire. because of its connection
with my affairs, to reproduce 1t as the pre-
liminaFy step upon which to base a statement
Of my interest in the case. Before dwelling
on q subject for many causes difficult TO eX-
plain, desire to express my thanks for the
wisdom that dictated the conclusions arrived
at by this higher court They are in keeping
with the spirit Of fairness, and are so regarded
by many citizens of this community. The de-
cisiOn has placed the seal of condemnation on
the worse than questionable rights claimed by
the corporation of this CITY to a certain class
of property known as ground rent lots, under
circumstances at any time likely TO arse.
The people Of this city have of late years
become familiar with a remarkable line Of
conduct on the part of certain persons VINO
have had much to do with the regulating OF
public affairs, and who, through the rights
claimed to exist In the corporation OF
this city, caused certain persons who
had joint interests in q valuable property, to
be virtually robbed out of it. In fact, there is
no knowing how many may have IN the same
way been deprived Of their rights under the
pretext that title absolute vested in the cor
poratiOn to property re-entered for nOn-pay
ment of ground rent. So firmly has this false
theory been impressed on the minds OF many
citizens that the right of the corporation to do
it pleased with such property has been
accepted as sound legal doctrine. The cOrpo-
ration of this, like all other cities, mas an
undeniable right to collect its taxes, through
which alone the general good of the whole
people can be the more readily accomplished,
but in doing the idea should not be lost
sight OF that the destruction of every interest
Of one or more delinquent tax payers Is not
necessary, and is entirely contrary to the
wishes Of the only persons who are lmmedl-
ately interested in providing the means to
meet all just obligations due from the city.
There are many ways in which amounts
past due for taxes and ground rent
can be collected without resorting to
harsh measures. Through legal methods Of
doubtful prOpriety garnishment can be served
on the income from any property, and what
ever the pressing needs Of the owner may be
the right of the city to collect in this way
would be conceded, and it is fair to presume
that the cases would be quite rare that would
require even this harsh measure on the part
of the city authorities.
DECISION AS RENDERED BY THE SUPREME
COURT.
Lawrence ct al. vs.. Mayor and Aldermen of
Savannah ct al. Equity from Catham, Be
fore Judge Adams, Contracts, Lease, Re-
entry. Landlord and Tenant.
HALL, j.
/. The city Of Savannah conveyed lot in
this city to a certain person on condition that
the lessee should, at specified times, pay
certain sum as ground rent, ana, IN case OF
failure therein for certain time after said
rent became due, then the lot and premises
were to revert to the grantor, who reserved
the power OF re-entry: This right was exer-
cised in the present case and the property
sold in manner held to be valid In 81 Ga, 24S.
The question here is, who is entitled to the
surplus in the hands of the city arising from
the sale after the claims of the city for ground
rent taxes and costs, etc, are satisfied?
Held, the right reserved by the city was
only pledge or security for the debt that
might be due it. It was reserved TO enable
the city to collect its rents expeditiOusly as
they fell due, and the city seems to have been
so accustomed to regard 1t. This custom
seems to have been to satisfy their demands
and to account to the true owner for the ex-
cess. l Stk., SOB.
2. The true ground of relief against penal
ties. conditions and f0rfeitures, is from the
original intent of the case. where the penal
ty, etc, is designed only to secure money, and
the Court can give by way of recompense all
that was expected or desired. l Strange, Al;
l Bro. C. c., AIS; White & Tudor, Cases PIP.
g. The right to redeem and continue the
lease, even after forfeiture, and re-entry ex-
lists whenever the lessee will pay what Is due,
and if the lessor declines TO receive it when
rendered, the amount will be ordered paid
into court and he will be enjoined from Gust
ing the tenant. See White and Tudor'e Sea
Cases, PIP. 7SS, 7S9, 100; Hare, 12S, l29.
4. In this case the city by the resale got
what was due it and secures its future rents
and by returning to the original lessee what
is over and above the amount due at the time
of the resale he gets nothing more than he was
entitled to under his contract.
5. AS between the other parties to this case
the CITY is a mere stakeholder and the equity
between them as well as their legal rights can
be settled on the final hearing of the case.
Judgment reversed.
John NJ. Guerard & VIM. D. Harden for
plaintiff; Chisholm & Erwin, H. c. Cunning
ham, contra.
In contention with this decision. it will not
be out of place to explain some facts that
have recently ascertained about the charac-
ter of the Lawrence claim. and viii COM
menee by reproducing the following petition,
obtained many years ago
PETITION OF NARY J. PoOLER,
Administrative of the estate of Caroline NJ.
Fraser, of Mary j. POOler, and of Caroline
NJ. F. Pooler, by their next friend, Mary J.
PoOler.
1t appearing to the court that it will be for
the benefit of said estate to make sale of SAID
lot No. 55 Brown ward, and it further APP
pearing that all parties on interest are rep
resented and consenting, and that there is no
question of fact IN dispute, 1t Is ordered that
the said Mary j. PoOler, ADMINISTRATIVE as
aforesaid, do make sale of and execute titles
to said lot MOI IS Brown ward, city of
savannah, at either public or private sale;
provided, that the said lot shall not be sold
for a sum less than $4,000.
1t is further ordered that the cost of this
proceeding be charge upon the proceeds of
sale. w. Ii. FLEMING,
Judge f. ID. Georgia.
NJ. G. SHEFTALL, Deputy Clerk 5. c. c. c.
January s. 1883.
Filed January 10, 1859. Folio 29O-9l.
1t will be seen that valuation was placed
upon the property before the order of court
was granted, and ITS correctness Is clearly es-
tablished by several facts, first of which is
months ago the price realized was only $3.50,
or $3.50 in excess of the price paid when sold
by order of court over twenty five years ago,
although extensive and costly modern i'm
prOvements were put upon the house when |
became the owner, costing over So. 600, and
continued repairs made yearly. A short time
previous to the transfer, the house was thor
Oughly repaired and renovated, both on the
exterior and Interior at cost OF over $1,000.
1t is however, proper to say that if the sale had
been fairly conducted the result would have
haaare lar 1npF $50 IN 10 DFl n
consideration of the valuable Improvements
referred to. 1t Is quite clear, however, that
full value was put upon the property when
sold by Mrs. POoler, for at the time the clty's
valuation was 81, 500, and for a number of
years after, but a small increase on that
amount took place.
nor children and its justice.-SOme time ago,
went to see lady who lived with the POoler
family for a number of years and whose
special duty 1T was to take care OF the mother
of the Lawrence minors in her youthful
DAYS. In June, 1853, she accompanied Mrs.
PoOler and the mother of the minors, who was
then herself a MINOR, to New York. On their
return Mrs. POOler did not go back to reside
in her own house, which is located next to the
property bought by me, but went to board
with a family named Smith on Congress
street, where, in company with her ward, the
mother of the Lawrence children and the SER
want, they occupied one room. This accom-
mediation, SO limited, caused the servant to
seek employment elsewhere, Mrs. Pooler's
want Of means being the cause of the change.
1t is fair to conclude that this statement is
correct from the fact that on the 5th day of
January, 1883, the property purchased by me
was sold to John F. Tucker, as trustee for
Mrs. Geo. W. Banks, less than two months
after the return Of Mrs Pooler from New
York. These and other facts that follow in
their train show clearly that the share Of the
mother of the children of Mr.. Lawrence had
been judciOusly expended on her, and it is
quite strange. if it was not, that Mr.. Lawrence
had not found out that his children had inter
ests IN the property that ought te be looked
after, since / purchased from Banks over
thirteen years ago, and that he or any other
representative OF the family had not claimed
any rights they may have had during the
twelve years previous to my purchase from
DR.. Banks cannot Out lie regarded as some
what strange, in view of the action taken at
this late day. Soon after l acquired title to
my property Mr.. Lawrence commenced suit