The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-10-11
Municipality Owns the Ground
On Which the City Building
Stands, But Pays Rent at
The Same Time.
AMOUNT GOES INTO
PUBLIC SCHOOL FUND.
Unusual Feature Arises From
The Provisions of a Will
That Was Made by Ithamar
Warner in 1888.

Notwithstanding the fact that the
city in 1880 bought the property on
which the city building now stands and
several years later built on this real
estate with the funds of the city, the
present city building, the controller Of
this city will pay to the school board
$3.50 rent for this property which the
city legally owns and occupies. This
action on the part of Controller Web
ster Parry, will not be unusual-in fact
the city has been paying annual rent
for it's own property to the school
board since about 1858.
Why this unusual state of affairs ex-
lists is long story, but an interesting
one.
The lot on which the city building
stands, was formerly owned by Itha-
mar Warner. In 1888 Mr.. Warner
died and in his will he bequeathed this
lot to sister. The bequest reads as
follows: Il will that my brick house
shall be finished and rented and | be-
queath the proceeds or rent to my sis
ter. Sarah Warner. during her life time
and after her death | will that the
rents of the g. -; house shall for
ever after be applied to the education
of the children of this town"
Sarah Warner died in 1888, and on
her death the remaining heirs asserted
their title to the property, claiming the
bequest thereof was void. 1t appears
that these heirs were allowed to keep
the property and appropriate for their
own use the rents, Notwithstanding the
fact that Mr.. Warner had directed that
these rents on the death of his sister
should be devoted to the education of
the children of Richmond In 1889
Robert MORRISON and James w. Green
bought this property and the same
year sold it to the city of Richmond
for $500. After this date, for a period
of several years, it seems the officials
of this city, under the impression that
the owner of a piece of property was
not required to pay rent for it. neg
lected to pay rent for the education of
the children of this town.
Action Brought in 1853.
In 1858 three citizens having chill
dren to educate. brought action in the
name of the state against the city Of
Richmond to enforce the payment of
rents. The circuit court appointed
trustees for the property and the city
appealed the decision to the supreme
court, which sustained the ruling of
the circuit court. After the supreme
court had made this ruling the trustees
executed to the city perpetual lease
on the property This made the city
not only the owner of the site of the
present city building but also the
lessee. Since that time the city has
been paying rent to the school board,
this rent at the present time amount
ing to $3.50 per annum. About twen-
ty-five years ago the city council de-
cided to tear down the brick building
erected by Mr.. Warner and which had
been used as a city hall. and erect on
the lot more modern building. AS
taxpayer DR.. T. Henry Davis brought
suit to enjoin the city from erecting
this building on the grounds that the
city did not have a clear title to the
lot. The court ruled that the city did
have a clear title to the property and
the present city building was erected.
If the city really has a clear title to the
property the question remains-why
does the city have to pay rent for the
property?
Il see no reason why the city should
pay rent for the site of the city build
ing" said city official. but perhaps
1t is Just as we'll that it does. If the
city did not contribute this $3.50 annu-
ally to the school board the tax rates
would be increased and the tax PAYERS
would have to shoulder the burden"