The Washington times., 1901-07-24
AN INVOLVED PROCEEDING
Conflicting Interests in Houses and
Lots Cause Legal Action.
A Deed of Trust on Fifteen Pieces of
Property and Concurrent In
strument on Eleven Leads to Ccm-
plications-Enforce Sale stopped


strument on Eleven Leads to Ccm-
plications-Enforce Sale stopped.
and Park Agnew, trading as Mertens &
Agnew. yesterday filed proceedings in
equity against the Mercantile Trust Com
pany, Percy II. Russell. and Hayden
Johnson, trustees: Brainard II. Warner.
Clarence b. Rheem. Samuel Ross. Thomas
r. Riley, and Warren Bates, asking that
they be enjoined from advertising for
sale fifteen lots and houses, valued at
100000. on Washington Heights. under a
certain deed of trust. Justice Eradley
issued a temporary restraining order en-
Joining the sale.
1t is explained that in the latter part
of January. 1900 Hensey entered into an
agreement with one William S. Jones by
which the latter was to continue the work
of building and complete the houses
within seven months. in consideration Of
the sum of $3.50. To ensure the proper
fulfillment of his agreement, Jones gave
a bond to Hensey In the sum of $4,000.
with the Mercantile Trust Company. of
Pittsburg. Pa, as his surety.
In order to secure the necessary funds
to carry out his part of the agreement,
Hensey gave a deed of trust on the fif-
teen lots in Washington Heights to Brain
ard II. Warner and Clarence B. Rheem
to secure a loan of $4,000. He then gave
a second trust to John T. Warren and
George c. Johnson on eleven Of the same
lots to secure loan of $500
Warren and Rheem, the trustees under
the first deed of trust. then requested that
Hensey give them a bond to secure them
against any loss by reason of failure
to complete the buildings. Hensey there
upon gave a bond in the sum of 10000
with the Mercantile Trust Company of
Pittsburg, Pa, as surety. The trust COM
pany thereupon took from Hensey a
blanket deed of trust upon all the lots,
which became a third trust on eleven of
the lots and a second trust upon the re-
naming four, In order to save them
selves from any loss which they might
suffer by reason of default on the part
of Hensey.
Jones had not proceeded far with
the work when he became involved,
1t is stated, and abandoned the
construction of the buildings. There
upon the trust company, which was
the surety on Jones' bond, undertook to
complete the work. The trust company
work to be performed under the contract
between Jones and Hensey; and. alleging
default on the part of Hensey, have
advertised the four lots and buildings for
sale under their trust. .s..-5 +,s,
The complainants contend that Hensey
has made no default and that before he
could have made default prior default
must have been made by the trust COM
pany. They further contend that the
trust company has not been called. upon
to make good any loss occasioned by
Hensey, and until that event occurs they
have no rights under their deed of trust.
The ccmplafnants further contend that
the trust company has not completed the
buildings according to the plans and
specifications and that the time within
which the houses We're to have been. fin-
ished has long since expired, which,
under the contract with Jones, was to
entitle Hensey to $50 day as damages
for each day over the original time speci-
fed.
In order to establish his rights against
the trust company and to ascertain the
damage to which he is entitled for the
breach of the contract. Hensey has filed
a suit on the bond for $4,000 given by
Jones, with the trust company as surety
Birney & Woodard are named as coun-
sci for the plaintiff