New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1903-08-19
.OT FOUR In CONTROVERSY
Three Claimants For Single Piece
Of Property.
Mill Company Wants Lot Which
Council Would Sell.
Real Estate is Part of Original
Railway Land Grant.

Railway Land Grant.
z Lot 4, Of block 1872, Park addition,
is a piece Of real property greatly in
demand. Originally a part Of the land
grant to the Winona & st. Peter Rail.
way company, the management Of the
New Ulm Roller Mill company believe:
they purchased it from the city last
year and now the municipality is adj
vertising it as one Of the parcels which
will be put up at public auction on
August 31st..
About year ago, when the mill
people were arranging to have the
Minneapolis & st. Louis build spur
track in to their plant, they sought to
buy lots 3 and 4, wanting one for the
track and the other to maintain =
wagon road to their elevator. The city
owned lot 3 and from the fact that it
had built a sidewalk along the adjoin-
ing piece, claimed proprietorship in
that also; agreeing to give quitclaim
deed to any purchaser. The fixed the
value of lot at $500 and of lot 4 at
$780,.
Condemnation proceedings were be-
gun but at this stage the Chicago &
Northwestern Railroad company step
ped in and intimated they would raise
objections if lot 4 were included. They
base their claim upon the old warranty
deed to the property now of record in
the registers Office and the condem-
nation proceedings we're dismissed as
against lot 4.
However, Ben Stockman, manager
OF the mill company, wrote check for
$500 in favor of the city with the under
standing, he says, thatthemunicipality
was willing to part with all its interests
in both lots atthat price. The arrange
ment seemed satisfactory to the city,
the mill company opened up its road
across lot and only recently had
planned to move it's cooper shop onto
the property.
Nowqueerc omph arisen;
for at the last meeting of the council
the aldermen voted to sell certain lands
belonging to the city and one lot.which
they purpose putting up at auction is
lot 4, of block 1872. They hold that it
was not included in the sale to the
mill company and intend to realize
whatever they can out of it to relieve
the present financial stringency. Mr..
Stockman has interviewed members of
the council but his views and those of
the aldermen are Numerically opposed
and a satisfactory settlement seems
unlikely. "
The lot itself is not a very valuable
piece of property. 1t is low and Doggy,
and, except for stragetic purposes,
would be worthless to an investor.
Moreover, the mill company has used
portion of it as a road for upwards
of twenty years and it would appear
that they have a very strong claim
under the statute of limitations.
At the council meeting last night
Mr.. Stockman reviewed the situation
to the alderman and asked them to re-
consider their decision tie sell the lot.
Attorney Eckstein argued that Mr..
Stockman had a false impression OF
the matter and stated that it would be
impossible for the city to withdraw,
as they held the lot in trust and not
in fee simple, and could not therefore,
part with it in any other manner than
by public auction. The mill manager
delivered himself of statement that
an attempt of the council to sell the
property a second time would be act
ing very dishonorably toward him but
he was given no satisfaction and com
PEELED to depart without the convey
| ance he requested.