St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-07-17
QUEER REALTY DEAL.
The West Side Finds Some
Peculiar Property
Sales.
One of the Grantors Suing to
Recover Rent Col
lected.
Testimony Looks Ugly in the
Bass Lake Murder
Case.
The Reform Has as Yet Made
No Move on DR..
Hoyt.
The Reform Has as Yet Made


commenced suit against G. G. Seidel for
$40, due him for rent. Seidel is butch
er at S32 Concord street, and Brady al
leges in the complaint, which was
served Friday, that Seidei has paid the
rent to another party and demands
judgment for that amount. The action
is brought by Erwin & Wellington. at
torneys for Brady. and grows out of a
| real estate sale in March last. The sale
| or trade did not make much of talk at
| the time it was made, but recent de-
| velopments in relation to the transac-
ton have caused considerable talk in
West st. Paul.
In the month of February last Henry
+. Linse was approached by local
real estate agents with proposition TO
sell number Of lots he owned. The
property was partially improved. two
story brick block of stores with flats
J overhead at $40, 334 and 336 Concord
street being included in the tract. The
purchaser, New York man, was anx-
ious to buy, and as he offered fair price
| the deal was soon closed. The records
III the register of deeds office show
that on March 1, 1892, Henry E. Linse
and wife transferred to George II. Bent,
| OF New York city, lots to inclusive,
| LinSe's subdivision of lots 9. 10 and IL,
blocks 50 and 81, Linse q Zimm er-
! mans Encouragement in Brown &
JacksOn's addition, West st. Paul.
the property being free from incun-
brance except three mortgages aggre-
| eating 5000. which were assumed by
the new owners as part of the purchase
price.
The Inside Facts
of the transaction, learned from one of
! the parties Interested. are that no cash
was paid, the grantor accepting mort
| gage on several thousand acres of land
In Kentucky and mortgage back IA
security. the grantee not being
able to make the necessary
| cash payment for several months.
The records further show on May %
| George II. Bent, of Chicago. sold to C.
| l.. johnson the same property he pur-
| chased on March l for $4,000. john
son on the same day leased to j. l..
Brady, of Princeton, Mimi, for two
years the property mentioned for $500,
| which amount was. according to the
| lease. duly paid. Since the sale m ade
| on March l by LlnSe to Bent the inter-
est OH the mortgages has became due,
but no payment has been made, and the
parties who hold the mortgages from
Linse have commenced foreclosure pro-
ceedings in consequence.
In the meantime the tenants in the
block Oh Concord street have been pay
ing their rents to Bent's and Brady's
agents. On July Linse served notice
on the tenants not to pay any more
| rents to Brady's agents or any one else,
aud as he agreed to protect them in the
matter he collected this months rent.
| This is what started the suit brought by
Brady against one of the tenants, and
Brady'S attorney said yesterday the
suit would be made test case to deter
mine who should receive the rents
from the block.
Linse Bides His Time.
Mr.. Linse was seen yesterday at his
residence. and asked for statement
concerning the matter He; said the
entire transaction would soon be
brought into the courts, and he did not
care to go into details at this time. He
very positively stated he was of the
opinion that the transaction was fraud.
ulent one, and said the whole scheme
would be laid bare In the courts.
Since the above facts were brought
to light several owners of business
blocks in West st. Paul have been con-
graduating themselves on all escape
from position similar to the one MIR.
LinSe is now in. About the same time,
OF little later. three prominent realty
owners in West st. Paul were ap-
preached with propositions of like
nature to the one accepted by Mr..
Linse. In each case the arrangements
for the trade or purchase fell through
Oh the same point-the Immediate pos
session of the property. The consider.
alton, it is understood in each PROPOSE.
ton, was to purchase at a very stiff fig
ure, but the agents explained the pur-
chaser could not make payments fol-
some months, his money being tied ur
in other property. Immediate posses
sion, probably to get the revenue from
the rents in each building, was par
of the propositions, and in none of the
three cases would the owners agree tt
this part of the deal.