The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-20
MUST TAKE THIS TRACT
Kirkland PROPERTY OWNERS IN
SISTS THE CITY HAS BOUGHT 1T.
One of Park Board Complications
Owners of other Land Are
Making Inquiries.

The Marion Trust Company will insist
that the contract made by the former
Board of Park Commissioners for the pur-
chase of what is known as the Kirkland
ground. corner of Washington street and
Miley avenue, be carried out The trust
company was administrator of the Kir-
land estate, and held the land at s12,O
but finally agreed to sell for $1,000 At one
time the board decided to purchase at that
price, but after deciding to extend the
river bottom parks down to Washington
street determined to drop the. Kirland
land. and apply the money to the purchase
Of the river land The company snbse-
quently insisted that the city was bound by
the first agreement to purchase,
and. on advice of attorneys, the
Park Board directed that the sale be con-
summated. A deed was prepared and sub
mitted to the board. A warrant for 5000
was drawn with the understanding that
some clouds on the title should be removed
before it's delivery. Before this was occom-
plished the suit denying the validity of the
board was brought. When a demand was
made on Controller Johnson he refused TO
pay the money pending the decision of the
Supreme Court. Since it ousted the Park
Board the controller congratulated himself
that he had not paid out the money.
A few days ago c. N. Thompson, attorney
for the trust company. met c. H. Spencer.
clerk of the park bureau, on the street and
the subject was mentioned. Mr.. Spencer
told him that the deed was ready to be re-
turned. Mr.. Thompson replied that the deed
belonged to the city. not to the company
Yesterday Controller Johnson met Mr..
Thompson on a street ear The latter in
formed the controller that the company
expected the city to pay for the land, with
interest, from the execution Of the deed in
II told him." said Mr.. johnson, that the
company would be lucky If the city paid
for the land, to say nothing about inter-
est"
Mr.. johnson says that the owners Of the
Davidson and Dean properties, the former
on East Ohio street and the latter on Mad
ison avenue, have inquired what was to be
done in their cases since the Supreme Court
decision. The status of these two cases was
about like that of the Kirkland property
when the injunction suit began. Mr. John
son informed them that he was unable to
say what will be done toward completing
the transactions that were begun by the
park commissioners He says that there
was no intimation of suits in these two
cases The contention of the parties Is that
when the deeds were delivered to the board
1t was de facto body. whose right to make
contracts had not been questioned and that
contracts made with 1t in good faith are
valid and binding on the city When the
Park Board was directed to discontinue its
work, pending the suit, it was informed
that contracts IT had made before the suit
began were legal-for one the contract for
repairing the dam at Garfield Park, which
called for an expenditure of about 5000 II
Is said that If this is good law the con-
tracts made for buying the three small
PARKS would also be valid as they were vir-
tually consummated before the suit was
Instituted.