The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-07-14
Geuda Springs Involved in
Law Suit,
Caused by a Tax Deed Which
Clouds Titles.
BATH HOUSE is SOIL
Oversight in Completion of the
Abstract
Causes Prolonged and Expen-
siVe Litigation, Now Closing.

Wellington, July 14.-One Of the most
important lawsuits ever tried in this
portion of the state was won at Win
field yesterday by James Lawrence as
attorney for o. B. Taylor of Leaven-
worth. 1t resulted in knocking out a
tax deed for $500 and involves the
ownership of the Geuda Springs bath
house and a portion of that city upon
which several residences have been
built
In July. 1885, c. r. Mitchell gave o.
B. Taylor a mortgage for $500 on a
tract of land that then adjOined Geuda
Springs. By mistake Taylor recorded
his mortgage in Cowley instead of
Sumner county Mitchell sold the land
to the Geuda Springs Town and Wa
ter company. They plated a part of it
into town lots and sold it. Fifteen or
twenty residences have been erected on
these lots. The water company mort
gagged another part of it to the Win
field Mortgage and Trust company for
$50, 900 and built the bath house upon it.
The abstracts furnished for all these
transactions failed to mention the mort
gage from Mitchell to Taylor.
About this time, Taylor's attorneys,
Senator Baker and his partner, discOv-
cred that TayIor's mortgage had never
been recorded in this county. They
placed the case in the hands of the
firm of Lawrence & Richards, who
made the discovery that the deed from
Mitchell to the water company contain
ed the stipulation that the deed was
made Subject to a mortgage Of $500
to Q. B. Taylor which the grantee 17i as
sumeS and agrees to pay" The law
says that the record of deed charges
all parties with notice of the contents
thereof
MitcheIPs deed charged all persons with
notice of ats recital as to the Taylor
mortgage a foreclosure suit was filed
July 25, 1890, to which the Winfield
frrar n al GRO
and occupants of all the property were
made defendants.
Judgment was rendered in the case
October 49, 1898 by J. A Ray as Judge.
He gave Taylor judgment on his note
against Mitchell for 1888 but refused
to fOreclOse the mortgage on the prop
erty. The case was appealed and re-
VerSed by the supreme court who held
that the recital of TayIOrs mortgage
in AIitcheIs deed was sufficient to
charge all parties with notice of it. Ac-
cordingly judgment was rendered for
Taylor, October 20, 1897, for $7,453, fore
closing his mortgage and barring all
parties to the suit, including the Win
field Mortgage company from any inter-
est in the property.
But in 1890, the mortgage company
had bought in this property at tax sale
after it had been made a party to the
Taylor foreclosure suit. 1t had paid
$1,523.97 in taxes, which with interest
thereon amounted to fully 81, 500. The
contest in the suit decided in Winfield
was between W. c. Robinson who held
this tax deed and Taylor's claim under
his mortgage. The court held that
TaylOr's mortgage was a first lien on
the property, knocking \Robinson's tax
lien out entirely. RObinsOn's attorneys
are so well satisfied that the decision
is right that no appeal will be taken
The consequence Of this judgment is
that Taylor will either have to be paid
his money or the bath house will be
sold and those who have built upon the
lots will lose their homes. The case is
one that especially interests a large
number of people of Geuda Springs.