The Topeka state journal., 1899-09-14
BRANNER BLOCK.
Battle For Its Ownership Now
Going On.
Property Said to Be Worth
About 100000.

Another chapter in the litigation be
tween Mrs w ". Webb and Mrs
Schuyler Nichols as plaintiffs, and
John 5 Branner as defendant, was
opened today. only the tables were
turned. Mr.. Branner is the plaintiff,
and Sheriff Cook is made a defendant
along with Mrs. Webb and Mrs. Mich
OILS.
The action is an injunction suit. and
in the petition all sorts of peculiar and
interesting allegations are made. The
property which is in litigation is the
Branner block, which is occupied by
the Pacific and United States Express
companies, Swift & Holidays drug
store, and Troup's Enterprise, besides
Offices on the second and third floors
The property is said. in Mr. Branner's
petition. to be worth between $4,000
and 800 000.
In his petition Mr.. Braaner begins by
reviewing the fact that ne was the
partner of Jacob Klein, the father of
Mrs Webb and Mrs Nichols, when he
died in 1875 that he, Branner- was ap-
pointed administrator Of Klein's estate.
and that he made his final settlement
as admiuiStrat tor and was released in
1850; that he made a final settlement Of
the partnership estate. which involves
the property in question, in 1892, and
was discharged in the probate court at
that time.
Then comes the beginning of the
present litigation. Mr. Branner al
Ieges that Mrs Webb and her husband.
Mrs Nichols and her husband. and
their attorneys, .keeler < H1te, entered
into a conspiracy to compel sale of
his property He says they went into
the probate court in May 1898. and the
probate judge opened the case again,
set aside the previous adjudlcat1On and
ordered a new one, finding that Bran
Der had been guilty Of fraud in procur-
ing the first settlement Following
this came the suits of ejectment which
were taken on q change OF venue TO the
district court OF Jackson county, where
the trial was presided over BY Judge
Myers. In this suit the plaintiffs. Mrs.
Webb and Mrs. Nichols, not only got
judgment for their share Of the Bran
ner block but they also secured per
sonal judgment for $4,000 against Mr.
Branner as their portion Of the rents
he has collected during the past 10 or
These cases have been appealed to the
supreme court and in the meantime the
building is in the hands OF receiver
In speaking Of Judge Myers rulings,
Mr.. Branner's petition says;
Upon the trial of said cases in said
Jackson county. Kansas. the court per
rnftred the plaintiffs in said cases to
use the findings and judgments OF the
probate court hereinbefOre referred to,
as evidence that the plaintiff had been
guilty of fraud in procuring said final
settlement in the said probate court
said court decided all questions OF
law and made all his rulings. as re-
ouested and desired by the attorneys
for said plaintiffs without any attempt
on its part to determine for itself the
various questions of law that arose in'
the trial of said cases
The Judge of said court. as this
plaintiff is informed and believes, has
stated TO one or more persons when
spoken TO in regard to his ridiculous
and unlawful rulings, that he had
known Judge Keeler for a considerable
\ z lid al
not believe that KeeIer would ask him
to decide question of law in such
way that such ruling would be reversed
by the supreme court. and therefore,
he allowed and permitted said attOr-
ueyS TO have the different questions OF
law decided as they desired And plain
tiff AYERS that the attorneys for said
defendants, and said defendants Josie
Webb and AIiIIie Nichols, took advant-
age of the lack of knowledge Of said
judge and unlaWfully. WrOngtully, and
fraudulently procured rulings and de-
ciSiOns by which they procured judg-
ment in all of said cases, which judg-
ments are unsupported by either aw or
equity"
Myers appointed a receiver for the
property without giving him notice. al
though the court had previously agreed
not to appoint a receiver if Mr. Bran
ner would give bond for $4,000, which
he did He also says he was owing
s. GOO to Fred Fensky. but that Mr.
FensBv was perfectly willing to allow
II to run until the other litigation was
settled But to protect his interests.
Mr. Fensky procured a judgment
against Mr. Branner for the amount
and it became a lien upon the property
in litigation Mr. Fensky. however. was
not going to force the sale of the prop
erty.
Mr. Branner claims that Mrs Webb
and Mrs Nichols tried to buy the judg-
ment of Mr.. Fensky. but that he re
fused to sell Then theV deposited the
amount of the judgment. interest and
court Mr.. Fensky thought that set
tied it and ne turned the judgment over
TO them. An execution was issued to
satisfy the judgment, and the property
was advertised to be sold September D.
1t IS to head on this sale that the in
junction suit is brought
Mr. Branner thought that he would
try the same game that the other side
tried He owed one OF his attorneys.
W r Hazen, 800. and he allowed Mr..
Hazen to get judgment against him in
the court of Topeka for the amount
and it was made lien on the property
Mr. Hazen then offered to buy the
FenSky judgment of Mrs Webb and
Mrs Nichols. but they refused TO sell
IT. AR Hazen deposited the necessary
amount TO cover it with the clerk of
the district court. but still the other
We're going ahead with the sale
The petition asks for an Injunction
to stop the sale, and Judge Hazen set
the hearing for a temporary Injunction
on September Is.