The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-11-09
VIM. Martindale Brings Big
Action.
Asks to Recover Price of His
Ranch.
RESULT OF BANK CASE.
R. T. Battey Is the Principal
Defendant.
Claim That He Made No Effort
ESULT OF BANK CASE.
Claim That He Made No Effort
to Get Best Price.

Proceedings were begun in the Shaw
nee district court late Friday afternoon
by Judge A. L. Redden and Albert dor-
ton for William Martindale of Empor1a
for the recovery of the sum OF SlOV'ooo
from r. T. Battey, Calvin Hood anu
Isaac Lambert
The suit is entitled William Martin
dale VS.. R. t. Battey. Isaac Lambert
Calvin Hood and the United States FL
deity and Guaranty company
The petition charges that the trustee'
r. T. Battey appointed by Judge VIM
C. Hook of the United States supreme
court to dispose of the property OF VIII
liam Martindale for the benefit of the
creditors of the Cross bank at Emporlas
according to an agreement, sold the
property for a sum grossly inadequate
and asks for the recovery of the sum OF
800. SOC, enough to equal the actual value
of the property sold to CALVIN HOOP AoI
the sum of $41,00
The petition charges that the de1eno-
ants in the suit in violation OF tnelr
duty of disposing of the property Ior
the best possible sum- illegally conIed-
Grated and conspired with CALVIN dooo
for the purpose and with the intent that
the said Hood might make the purchase
of all the property from r. L. Battey as
trustee, for a sum grossly inadequate
and much less than the actual value ana
at a much less sum than could nave
been obtained for the property If an
honest and fair effort had been made to
sell to the highest and best bidder.
The petition sets forth in detail the
parties who were the creditors of Will
liam Martindale according to his agree
ment to settle the affairs of the cross
bank The details of the agreement are
rehearsed. The history of the appoint
ment of R. T. Battey as trustee is again
set forth and the statement is made
that although Mr.. Battey had a surety
bond in this company no copy of it was
ever furnished the judge presiding nor
the plaintiff in the suit now pending.
The assertion is also made that r. 7.
Battey never made a written report of
his transactions as trustee to the judge
presiding nor to the creditors OF the
plaintiff nor to the plaintiff
The petition sets forth that the deeds
to the Martindale property were turned
over to Mr. Battey about July 19. 1889
The description of the property requires
five pages of typewriter matter. de-
scribfng $500 acres of land besides city
property The land is valued at $141,-
900. The petition sets forth that Mr.
Martindale was indebted in the sum of
$110,0 at the time.
The petition asserts that the law firm
of Lambert and Higgins were the reg
ularly paid attorneys for both Morton
Albaugh, the receiver of one of the
creditors of the bank and Calvin Hood
1t is asserted that r. T. Battey failed
to perfect the abstracts to the various
properties and bring them to date with
the intent of diScouraging prospective
bidders. That ne inserted advertise
ment in the Emporia Gazette announc-
ing the real estate for sale in a bulk,
when it could have been disposed of
more easily and to more profit by par
GELS.
He also required bidders to send a GER
titled check for five per cent of the
amount of the bid and bids were to
be received after December %. The adj
vertisement was inserted November %.
L 4, - kr1~ rrr0rf1 To- 70 Il
fermine who was the successful bidder.
1t is also asserted that several of the
creditors were anxious to make bids on
the property but they were put of on
one pretext and another until too late.
The petition sets forth that Ford
Harvey, who had claim against the
bank for $4,000. and who believing
Battey was not making an honest effort
to sell the property, asked for a re-
straining order. 1t was granted. 1t is
then asserted that Lambert went to
interests for Mr.. Hood and made ar
engagements to allow the case to stand
on the docket
The fact that the restraining order
= stood against them offered an excuse
Tito put off prospective bidders, and it is
xaSserted no effort was made to fight
the restraining order. 1t is further as
serted that the Harvey attorneys were
paid a. fee of $500 from the proceeds of
the sale of the Martindale property by
reason of the arrangement. This it is
claimed was unwarranted.
The petition sets forth that from De-
cember q until January 8, the day the
sale was confirmed by Judge Phillips