The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-08-10
In AND ABOUT THE CITY
ARGUING ON GROUND RENTS
The Injunction Case against the City
ia Progress.

The Injunction Case against the City
ia Progress.
Judge FalIgsnt, sitting in chambers,
heard the argument yesterday morning for
a temporary injunction restraining the city
council from collecting taxes from the
holders Of the ground rent lots until the
case can be finally heard at the regular trial
term Of the court
The title Of the case is David Wells ct al.
VS.. the mayor and aldermen of the city OF
Savannah. injunction and relief. j. h
Saussy is attorney for the plaintiffs, and
sets forth IN a lengthy petition their posi-
ton The petitioners are David Wells,
Thomas Balantyne, Charles NJ. Gilbert,
John II. Gilbert. William Kehoe, Henry
Blum, Mrs. Mary 4. Douglas, d. G. Purse,
Robert Mcintyre, and Dennis OCOnnel.
The petition is a review Of the history OF
the ground rent question from the very
beginning. when the lots were first leased
in 1890 1t cites the action Of the city
councils for the last 100 years in exempting
them from taxation, and the fact that
there has been no ordinance from
1906 to 1878 imposing tax on ground rent
property, and that up to 1856 all tax or
dinances contained a specia! clause exempt
ing ground rent lots from taxation The
fact is cited that an attempt on the part Of
the city to collect taxes from ground rent
lots in 1878 was unsuccessful
A great deal of time was taken up in
Producing the records of council for a num-
Der of years past and in the beginning of
this century
Mr.. Saussy's argument occupied over an
hour. He stated the claims of the plaintiffs
that, under the original contract with the
city, these lots are subject only to ground
rent, land that the corporation has,b its or
dinances, reports and public acts, continu-
ously for nearly one-hundred years, treated
them as leased lots and has never
before attempted to collect any tax's on
them; that the city only conveyed Inc use
and enjoyment of the lots So long as the
holder would pay the ground re at; that the
present lot owners, relying on this inter-. o.
tatton of the contract, have paid large
prices for the lots, and that the city is now
bound TO recognize that Interpretation, and
cannot change the construction that has
always been put upon the contracts, and
impose city taxes.
The position Of ground rent lot owners, in
a nutshell, is that they regard themselves as
holding the lots by q perpetual lease from
the city at specified rent, and that such
being the case they cannot be compelled to
pay taxes on these lots.
Mr.. Saussy will conclude his argument
tomorrow morning, and will be fol-
lowed by City Attorney s. B. Adams
for the city. Mr.. Adams answer
to the petition of the ground rent
lot owners is very short and denies that
any valid reason is given why the lots
should not be taxed Now that the ques-
ton of taxes upon the ground rent lots has
gotten into the courts, 1t will not be settled
until 1t has gone TO the supreme
court. The owners of the lots will carry
the case to the supreme court if Judge Fall
ligant's decision is adverse to them, aud the
city will also carry up the case if the de-
cision is adverse to it.