The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-03-06


of the Eastern States-The Famous
Highland Hall Case is Decided--The
Man Who Holds Mortgage on Some
Wichita Property Comes Out on Top
There were two decisions handed
down by Judge Reed yesterday that
are of more than ordinary interest to
the lawyers and to a good many people
directly interested.
One is popularity known as the High
land Hall case and the other was suit
involving the title to the fine residence
OF Hardy Solomon on College Hill in
this city.
The decision in the Highland Hall
case is too long to attempt TO give the
language OF the learned judge. The
opinion of the court in this case cover
ed fourteen large closely type written
pages and nothing more than sum
mary can be given
Briefly stated, there was company
incorporated in Arkansas City called
the Highland Hall company. Frank
j. Hess owned about all the stock in
the company and he was the power be-
hind the throne, and whatever Mr..
Hess wanted the company to do was
done.
Frank ]. Hess was worth half mill
lion Of dollars and an energetic bust
ness man of unbounded credit, but the
recent shrinkage process through
which the country has been passing for
the past two or three years depreciat-
ed the value of Mr., Hess assets the
same as other peoples property was re-
duced in value, and he may not be
worth quite half million now.
cl0Ga
Hess borrowed large amounts of money
and paWned his stock in the Highland
Hall company as colloteral and finally
when the American National bank OF
Arkansas City became dissatisfied
with its collateral for the amount of its
claim against Mr.. Hess IL demanded
more security, and Hess had the Of
ficers of the Highland Hall company
execute a mortgage on some very val
liable real estate in Arkansas City to
the bank for 10000.
There. were numerous other claims all
amounting to something like $4,000 and
finally suit was commenced in the
United States court, the title OF which
is: H. F. Hatch as receiver OF the
American National bank of Arkansas
City VS.. The Johnson Loan and Trust
company, First National bank Of Ar
kansas City, the Highland Hall COM
pany and others.
This was a suit in chancery by which
Hatch attempted to enforce his lien on
I, the property OF the Highland Han
company in Arkansas City. Numerous
other parties We're made parties to the
suit and the claim was sent up that the
mortgage given by the Highland Hall
company was a fraud because the
Highland Hall company did not owe
the bank anything at the time the
mortgage was gwen.
a<rlA IaV-
stood the decision to be that the Amer
lean National could only claim the
SO 600 of Highland Hall stock deposited
by Hess and the cash actually advanc-
ed on the mortgage given by the High
and Hall company which was only
small per cent of the mortgage. This
may make a good deal of difference TO
depositors in the American National.
as the property in Arkansas City COW
cred by the mortgage is said to be very
valuable.
The other case while involving less
money is more interesting to the peo-
pie of Wichita. When Hardy Solomon
erected his fine residence on College
Hill he executed mortgage to -
Bernd who afterwards commenced
foreclosure proceedings in the United
Staes court against Hardy Solomon.
John Hume was counsel for Solomon
and before the case was decided in the
| United States court, Nalienstein,
who was "A brother-in-law of Solomon,
obtained tax deed 10 the property and
commenced a suit in the district court
of Sedgwick county and obtained a
Judgment quoting his title after which
he sold the property to Alexander.
Bernd never discovered the Judg-
ment in the state court until about the
time he was going to get a Judgment
in the federal court forecloSlnS his
4 vi .v7 fr.-r
and Alexander parties to the suit and
these latter parties set up their judg-
ment obtained in the district court as
a defense against Bends right to fore
close his mortgage.
This raised the whole question OF
Jurisdiction between the federal and
state court and the prominent lawyers
present seemed TO be highly pleased
with Judge Williams decision in the
matter. and some of them agreed that
the matter of Jurisdiction was made
palmer in this case than they had ever
understood it before
The substance of a lengthy opinion
delivered by Judge Williams was that
the tax deed could not interfere with
| the United States court because when
the proceedings We're commenced IN
the United States court Ii had juris-
diction of the case and that jurisdiction
could not be removed by later pro-
ceeding commenced in another court
The commencement OF the foreclos-
ure case in the federal court was no.
tice to Wallenstein and Alexander that
the federal court had jurisdiction of the
case and every other court must re-
frain from any act which would disturb
the jurisdiction of this court.
This decision renders of no force the
proceedings in the district court and
Mr. Bernd seems to have the best
claims to the Solomon residence.
Judge Williams explained at length
how courts were Jealous OF their rights
and one court seldom encroaches upon
the jurisdiction of another. The idea
seemed to prevail among the lawyers
that the district court had no knowl-
edge of the case in the federal court
when he passed upon the case.