The Topeka state journal., 1904-12-30


of determining its location and the
boundaries and corners thereof
The taxes on the waterworkS prop
erty for the year 1904 have not yet
the taxes be paid before the city
finally purchases the plant.
In the opinion of the city's attorneys
the Topeka Water company secured
a good title from the Topeka Water
Supply company to all the property
then owned by the latter company
by the deed dated January 81, 1890.
The most serious trouble exists with
the various manipulations of the
company's finances which took place
consequent to the ownership of the
plant by Chas. F. Street and the
Topeka Water company. 1t is where
the issuance of bonds and trusteeships
thickly followed fast upon each other s
heels, resulting finally in the appoint
ment of a receiver. The cloud against
the title with reference to this par
ticular is embodied in the following:
The Topeka Water company, a Kan
sas company, was foreclosed on the
9Th of August, 1896, to satisfy a mort
gage held against the same; Chas. F.
Street, representing the interests at
stake, bought in the property and paid
the sum of $525, 600.
These foreclosure papers have been
lost and no trace of them appears to
exist.
which the former had secured a mort
gage of $120. 900 in 1882 no record exists
that the debt has been fully satisfied,
Mr.. Strong started foreclosure proceed-
ings in 1894 and favoring judgment was
rendered him after a considerable
lapse of time, some time in 1897. The
judgment with the accrued interest on
the principal amounted to $l4S.OOO, this
was reduced to $1z3, 900 through subse
uuent hydrant rentals from the city.
Since no sale was made of the property
Strong signed his judgment over to the
Atlantic Trust company of New Jersey.
This judgment has never been released
and recorded.
In 1886 the Topeka Water company,
the New Jersey corporation to whom
the same year Street had sold the plant
for 81 500 900 filed three mortgages with
the Atlantic Trust company, the first
mortgage was to the amount of 100000.
The claim is made. however, that only
S27G. 900 of these bonds were issued. The
opinion in connection with this follows
IN our opinion the city should be pro-
tected in case of purchase against the
$3.50, 900 in bonds executed under the
first mortgage of 100000 and which it
is claimed has never been certned ana
assured by a surrender and destruction
of said bonds so that there Will be no
question that the only bonds now or
that can be at any time outstanding
under said first mortgage over the
S27O. 900 in bonds secured by the mort
gage subject to which the city is 20
take the plant"
A second mortgage of S95O,OOO vas
placed on the property by the Atlantic
Trust company, but the claim is made
that only S5500O0 worth of bonds were
issued. Still in addition to this d third
mortgage of the same amount as the
second was floated but the claim made
here again is that only $3.50. 900 worth of
bonds were issued. In 1892 the Attain
tic Trust company which was trustee
of these mortgages was merged into
the Metropolitan Trust company. cor
poration doing business under the laws
Of New York. The latter corporation
then foreclosed the property in favor OF
the first mortgage holders, thus smut
ting out the holders of the third mort
gage. This fact makes new dtfhcultleS
appear as it is considered entirely pos
sible that these latter moregagees have
still rights upon the waterwOrks plant
which they can assert in the courts If n
sale is consummated. When the Metro
trustee for the third mortgage bond |
holders it asked the Pioneer Trust
company of Kansas City to act as
trustee for the third mortgage bond |
holders. At this point another serious
question arises as to whether the Met
Trust company had any right
TO- designate the Pioneer Trust com
Dany as trustee, especially since II is
that a majority OF thosS
failed to grant their con- [
sent.
And because of this fact that the third |
bondholders never had their m |
.erests legally foreclosed because of the |
LEGALITY connected with the discharge or |
he trusteeship their claims still must be
validity To add to the intricacies. the |
,laims which are being pushed by William
". Horn, Joab Mulvane and the Park
lurst-Davis Mercantile Co, in the suit OF |
he Metropolitan Trust company against
he Topeka Water company, are not suN /
iciently covered and assured by the pres |
mt company to warrant the city in taxing |
lp with the plant until the claims have
)een entirely settled without question. A |
lond has been furnished for 1901, 900 of this |
amount, bat there still remains in claims
SO, 600. which, though thrown out OF court, |
nay yet suffer appeal, and in case of a |
avorable verdict to the plaintiff, cost the
IN two points the opinions of City Attor-
ley Spencer and that of Special Attorney
dcF'arland differ; They are t contained In
ory right of redemption fails to hold un-
Ter the Kansas statutes Mr.. McFarland
believes that contingency may arise in
which the Kansas law would not be at
ross purposes with the statutory right
# redemption If the latter should hold it
would make it possibie for the third
mortgage bOndhOlders to bring action
oOking to the possession of the plant
lad been consummated. Mr.. Spencer
lolds in the other opinion that the Met
uccessor TO the Atlantic Trust company,
While Mr.. Mcfarland holds to the con-
rary.
From the above which practically gives
summary of faults in the title it can
e readily seen that the waterworks are
ar from being in the hands of the citizens
nd that the utmost care should be exer-
ised in securing a perfectly healthy title
n the face of the long list of unsatisfac-
Ory legal transactions.
The matter, on a motion, was referred
o the waterworks committee, who were
to act with the two attorneys
nentioned in the above in the securing or
learing uD of the title.
The report cited has been ordered pub
shed and so of these will be printed for
he perusal of the councilmen and others
Interested.
Mrs. Mattern Dead.
New York, Dec. 30.-Mrs. Sophie
:. Mattern, an accomplished painter