The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-05-04
COULD NoT SUE AS TRUSTEE.
Suit for Trespass Against Dixon,
Mitchell & Co Dismissed.

The greater part of the time
of the City Court yesterday was
occupied with the case of r. NJ.
Farrar, trustee, against Dixon Mitchell &
Co. MIR. Farrar sued his trustee for Mrs.
Fannie T. Porter, executrix of the estate
of ]. H. Porter, deceased, J. G. Oglesby,
George Winship and George w. Scott, as
receivers of the Merchants Bank of At
lanta, and e. T. Williams, the first and
last named parties also being Of Atlanta.
The amount sued for was $500 the
plaintiffs claiming that they had been
damaged to this amount by the action of
the defendants in going upon 16 lots of
land in Echols county, and cutting the
timber thereon. The parties for whom Mr.
Farrar sued as trustee, claim to be the
owners Of the land, through a chain of IT,
ties, some of which were originally held
by parties in Ohio. Indiana and elsewhere.
Dixon, mitchell & Co., also claimed TO have
obtained the right to cut the timber on the
land from the parties living thereon, who
held legal title, and some of whom had
obtained their titles from the original
grantees from the state
1t was very evident from the papers in
the case that either one set of the claim
ants or the other was in possession of
fraudulent titles ana each side seemed to
be under the impression that IL was the
other which had availed itself of fraud
Fraudulent titles have been the cause Of
much difficulty TO purchasers of land in
Georgia, and doubtless will continue TO be
for some time TO come.
Mr.. Walter G. Charlton of Savannah
and Capt. S. T. Kiugsberry of Valdosta
represented Dixon, Mitchell & Wells. while
the plaintiff was represented by Mr.. ]. r.
Cain of Savannah, and Mr.. S. c. Town
send Of sValdosta. Various legal points were
argued during the day. but the interesting
question as to who held the legal titles to
the land was not discussed
The main point in the case hinged upon
the deed from the parties named 10 r. M
Farrar as trustee. which Mr.. Charlton
claimed was inadmissible as evidence for
various reasons. The law of Georgia does
not allow trustee to be appointed excent
for insane persons and minors and this
beng the case Mr.. Charlton argued that
the deed had no standing in court. He
was upheld by the court in this conten-
ton. The attorneys for the plaintiff were
willing to- strike out the word trustee"
after che name of Farrar and bring The
suit In his name or to strike out "R NJ
Farrar, Trustee" and substitute the
names of The parties who had decided the
land TO him in trust, but Judge Norwood
held that there was nothing to show that
Farrrar was interested in the property.
nor was there anything to show that the
attorneys had any authority to substitute
the names of other parties.
Seeing that the law was against then,
the attorneys for the plaintiff moved to
dismiss the case. 1t was stated that the
suit would be brought up again later in a
different form.
j. W. Martin was given verdict in the
City Court yesterday against the Florida
Central and Peninsuiar Railroad for s157.7
being the full amount sued for, Martin
claimed that this amount was due him bv
the company under its contract with him
for his services in working over time.
Other judgments were rendered as fol-
lows:
Charleston Basket and Veneer COMPANY
against Fawcett Bros, suit on note.
$1411.3I, with $25114 interest.
Bendall, Harvey & Co. against Fawcett
Bros, suit on note, $3,01450, with interest
from Sept. l, 1896.
McDonough & Co. versus j. B. Withers.
suit on note, $2,0O4.O5 with $s25.65 interest.
-s-o-s