The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1903-07-31
Mankato Woman Seeks to Recover
From a New UImite.
Trial Will Be Somewhat Sensational,
So II Is Said.
Action Is Complicated BY Various
Crooks and Turns.
Bone of Contention Is Piece OF
Business Property.
Erom Saturdays Daily.


An interesting and complicated law
suit which will come up in the next
term OF court, is that of Mrs. Anna Hofer
and daughters, the Misses Bertha,
Amelia. Caroline and Pauline Goede of
Mankato vs. VIM. Durbahn of this city,
saws The New Ulm Journal. The bone
of contention is the property at the cor
her of State and Third streets. One of
the buildings is occupied by Durbahn
a a. grocery store and the other as a
dwelling house. \ small frame dwelling
stands on the rear part of the lot.
Attorney }. H. Long of Nlankato was
here Saturday and in behalf of his clients
demanded $1,000 for the property and
damages to the extent of $1,000.
Henry Goede. the former husband of
Mrs Hofer and father of these daugh-
tiers, owned the property before mention
ed. which was the family homestead.
In 1890 he borrowed 81 900 from Jacob
Pfenninger and gave as security a deed
of the property, so the complaint runs.
The plaintiffs further allege that Chas.
Grussendorf and William Durbahn, by
threatening to open a competing store
across the street, coerced Goede into sell
ing the property. for 81, 400, a figure far
below its value Mrs. Goede, however,
refused to sign any transfer, and to get
around this difficulty the deed was given
to Pfenninger, who held the deed given as
security by Goede-
The claim of the plaintiffs is that
Pfenninger had no title to the property
and therefore no right to deed it, his
deed being merely mortgage for the ST.
000 Furthermore, no conveyance OF
Goede to him is on record, and even If
it were, it would be void without the
signature of Mrs. Goede, as the property
was their homestead. Moreover, as the
present owner has not lived on the place
fifteen years, the plaintiffs are not barred
out by the statute of limitations.
The above is the story according to the
complaint Mr. Durbahn, on the other
hand. claims that the title has never
rested in Henry Goede and VIE, but did
rest in Pfenninger, from whom he had
deed.
March II. 1884 Goede received from
William ANIME and wife, former own
ers of the property, bond for deed III
the sum of 81 600 in which ANIME and
wife bound themselves to deliver to
Goede the deed on payment of the sum
mentioned. In 1890 Goede borrowed
81 900 from Jacob Pfenninger and signed
over to the latter all his rights in the
property. This REIMBURSEMENT was writ
ten on the back of the bond for deed and
Is as follows;
Il, Henry Goede, in consideration of
the sum Of 1000 paid to me by Jacob
tlmninger, do hereby for myself, my
heirs and assigns, relinquish all my rights
acquired under the within document to
said Jacob Pfenninger.
Dated, New Ulm, Aug. l, 1890.
Henry Goede.
"In, presence of VIM. Pfaender."
This REIMBURSEMENT gave Pfenning-
Ell any rights to the property Goede may
have had under the bond for deed, but
il did not give him title, as the title
still rested in ANIME and wife. So July
/, $780, Pfenninger obtained from the
latter warranty deed in consideration
Ct 500.
This is the way the case stands now,
and it promises to furnish interesting
reading when it comse up in the Deem
Der term of court Mr.. Durbahn has re-
tanned Joseph A. Eckstein as attorney to
look after his interests