Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-12
THEY WANT THE DEED
Purchasers of the Old Poor Farm
File Their Answer in Court.
CHARGES OF COLLUSION DENIED.
Mayor Gourley's Approval Not Considered
to be Necessary.
A DAYS WORK IN THE COUNTY COURTS

Carnegie, Phipps s. Go. yesterday filed
their separate answer to the suit of Charles
L. Straub against the city of Pittsburg, 81.
1. Gourley, Mayor; R. c. Elliott. Chief Of
Department of Charities; M. I. Baird and
Carnegie, Phipps & Co. to prevent the sale
of the City Poor Farm.
In the answer it is admitted that the land
mentioned was conveyed to the Guardians OF
the Poor. but the city of Pittsburg paid the
consideration, and the Guardians have al
ways held the property in trust for the city
to enable it to carry out one of its powers
and functions as a municipality. On Sep
tember /, 1876, Daniel Risher and wife con-
veyed to the Mayor, Aldermen and citizens
OF Pittsburg 1921 acres of the present Poor
Farm. On September 29, 1861, it was con-
veyed to the Guardians of the Poor. In 1887
the Guardians of the Poor we're abolished,
and on July "a, 1890, they conveyed it to the
city of Pittsburg.
Continuing, it was denied that M. L.
Baird was declared to be the purchaser with
out consulting with the Chiefs of the De-
partments of Public Works and Public
Safety.
DIDN IT NEED THE MAYORS NAME.
As to the Mayor not signing the approval
of Councils of the sale it is asserted that it
was not necessary to present it to him for
his approval. and that it is therefore void,
or that there is any law requiring such ap-
proval to be submitted to the Mayor, is de-
MED.
Carnegie, Phipps & Co. stated that their
connection with the City Poor Farm sale
was that on July 26 they responded to an
invitation from the city contained in an ad-
vertisement, inviting propositions for the
purchase of the City Poor Farm upon the terms
and conditions of the ordinance of July Il
They proposed to purchase the real estate, and
accompanied their proposition with check
for S50, 900, agreeing that If their proposition
should be accepted it was to be applied IN part
payment of the purchase money. At the time
of making this proposition to the city, nor at
any other time, had they or any OF
their officers. agents or employees, di-
rectly or indirectly, any understanding
or agreement with any person or persons pro-
posing to bid for said property or with the
agents or representatives of any such person or
persous proposing to bid thereon. Continuing,
they denied having any knowledge as to who
would be the bidders on the property nor what
amount would be bid therefor, nor did they
nor anyone for them have any understanding
with Joshua Rhodes or Milton !. Baird or with
anyone for Rhodes or Baird that the said
Rhodes or Baird should bid any amount what
ever.
CoLLUSION STRONGLY DENIED.
There was no scheme that the defendant or
Rhodes we're to bid for the purpose of creating
an appearance of competition to Baird's bid,
nor did they have any knowledge that Baird
would be the bidder. Their relation to the sale
was that after the Baird bid had been accepted
by the city, and the property awarded to him
as the highest bidder, Baird. for a valuable
consideration, by deed duly executed and ac-
kuowledged, assigned the contract to this de-
fendant and granted and sold to them all his
interest therein. and in the assignment directed
the city to deliver TO this defendant the deed
for the farm, upon their compliance with all
the conditions of the sale. The city was in
formed of the transfer and agreed to 1t, and
deed was prepared.
The city, however has not complied with the
contract though the defendant is willing, and
the Court is asked to order and decree the city
to execute and deliver to the defendants, as
assignees of M. L Baird, a general warranty
deed for the property in accordance with the
terms of the contract.