History of the Olbiston

[jon hynes]

OLBISTON DISPUTE
HEARD IN COURT
________________________________

EFFORT OF MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
CO. TO FORECLOSE
________________________________

A LARGE SUM INVOLVED
________________________________

Amount Due Plaintiff Company is $183,470 - Olbiston, Valued at About 960.000 involved - Olbiston Payment of County and City Taxes.

[jon hynes]

Justice Devendorf convened a special Adjourned term of the Supreme Court in this city at 1 p. m. to-day, in the case of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York vs. the Clinton Wire Cloth, et. al. impleaded, with Seymour D. Latcher et al. The appearances were Cookinham, Sherman A. Cookinham for the plaintiff, Jones, Townsend A. Rudd for Philip Owen et al., George C. Morehouse for Seymour Latcher. Matteson & DeAngells for Emma A. Blanchard, Lindsley & Mackie for defendant Radwuy, and Theodore Cross for himself as guardian of John Owen et. al.

The complaint recites that Milton M. Northrup, Seymour D. Latcher and Deville W. Northrup for the purpose of securing to the plaintiff the sum of $175,000, executed a bond May 31, 1898, binding the payment in the penalty of $850,000, the same to be void if the $175,000 were paid by May 21 1899, interest at 6 per cent, to be paid semi-annually, the Olbiston being furnished as collateral. The building, under the agreement, was to be kept insured against fire and taxes were to be paid.

[jon hynes]

Milton M. Northrup died November 31, 1903 leaving his wife and Mrs. Seymour D. Latcher as heirs-at-law, no letters of administration being issued. Mrs. Northrup died December 16, 1903. Mrs. Latcher being appointed administratrix of her mother's estate. Deville W. Northrup died March 24, 1906, John Owen died December 16,1905.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Seymour D. Latcher. and Deville W. and Milton M. Northrup have failed to comply with the conditions of the bond and mortgage by omitting to pay $171,000 alleged to have been due May 31. 1899, and by omitting to pay the Utica city assessments levied in 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1906, amounting to $18,100, exclusive of interest fees and penalties, which amount by the terms of the bond and mortgage - have become a part of the principal. It is further claimed that Defendants Philip Owen et al. claim to have some interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises or some part thereof.

[jon hynes]

The plaintiff demands Judgment that Seymour D. Latcher and Lulu N. Latcher be barred from all right, claim, lien and equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises; that the premises may be decreed to be sold according to law; that out of all the moneys arising from the sale thereof, plaintiff be paid the amount due with interest and expenses, that the officer making the sale be directed to pay all taxes, etc., and that Seymour D. Latcher and Lulu N. Latcher to the extent of any property she may be entitled to receive from, the estate of her father, Milton M. Northrup, and the defendants. Lulu N. Latcher, Grace M. North, Linus A. Northrup and Sarah C. Radway to the extent of any property they may have received or be entitled to receive from - the estate of Deville W. Northrup and Sarah C. Radway as administratrix of Deville W. Northrup may be adjudged to pay any deficiency which may remain; that Seymour D. Latcher; et. al. shall be restrained from collecting the rents.

John O. McLaughlin for the plaintiff company testified that there is now due it the sum of $183,470.29.

[jon hynes]

Attorney Morehouse offered in evidence the articles of Incorporation of the Clinton Wire Cloth Company. Attorneys Cookinham and Jones objected, but the document was received by the court Mr. Morehouse also offered a mechanics lien, under date of April 14, 1899, by the Clinton Wire Cloth Company against Northrup & Latcher, subject to like objections and the ruling of the Court. A lis pendens and complaint in the case dated May 22, 1905, a Judgment roll foreclosing the line under date of March 1 1905 an Assignment to David A. Avery of the mechanics' lien, a bond from Seymour D. Latcher to Owen brothers.

Seymour D. Latcher was next sworn and stated certain dates of transactions by the firm of Northrup & Latcher. He stated that the Olbiston is worth $500,000. He stated that he has not had charge of the building or collected rents in it since Mar 1, 1901, when a receiver was appointed. Mr. Latcher testified that he has charge of heating and lighting the build, and receives therefore $100 a month, with $1,150 a month for heating, lighting and repairs. Mr. Latcher stated he could not give the net income of the building without referring to his books. Mr. Latcher was asked to give the cost of the Olbiston but under objection was not allowed to state.

[jon hynes]

James T. Bomers, Deputy County Treasurer, produced the county tax rolls. On November 22, 1906, there was due the county on unpaid taxes the sum of $1,609.64, The building was bid in by the county for that sum.

John J. Bannigan, city Treasurer was called to give the sums of the city and special taxes. He stated that the taxes in question were under litigation and that the city was enjoined from the collection of the taxes.

Mr Latcher recalled on cross-examination was asked by Mr. Jones what interest he had paid on the amount due to Owen Brothers. He stated he could not state the exact percentage of the amount due paid but that the aggregate was several thousand dollars.

The Hon. Thomas S. Jones was sworn and testified that John Owen and Seymour D. Latcher came to his office last August and spoke of the overdue interest on the $175,000 mortgage. Mr. Latcher saying that it was impossible for him to meet the payment at once. Mr. Morehouse objected to the statement so far as it affected his clients' lien. Continuing Mr. Jones said an arrangement was suggested whereby Owen Brothers paid the amount due being, secured by Mr Latcher.


The hearing continues. Briefs will be submitted.
____________________________

Utica Herald Dispatch Saturday Evening, December 1, 1906

[fiona]

There we go, John, another mystery solved??? Owens, Latcher and Blanchard! O.L.B. iston!!
The Olbiston was not called thus until 1901, prior to that it was still called the Genesee. Now
I know why. I am fascinated by this new thread. The building is in the exact same place today as it was 110 years ago. Everything today seems to cycle back to yesterday. The energies of this building just will not rest. Beyond that, can someome please explain to me what this lawsuit means, I am low on legalese.

[fiona]

ok I think I am starting to gt the bigger picture: The fire at the GF, along with the construction of the Kanatenah, and the bad investments ( re: the Opera House), the rebuilding of the Opera Block, and the opening of the Washington Flats, put Seymour Latcher into bankruptcy. Along with this his father in law, Milton Northrup, died intestate, left no will and was insolvent at the time of his death. So, the remaining partner, in the Owens brothers team, is suing Seymour Latcher for the monies owed him, or that which he feels is owed him. He is demanding that the Olbiston be sold and Mr Latcher and his wife be barred from any and all aspects of running the building and or recieving the rents. No taxes have been paid on the building for 6 years and Mr Latcher desperate for money, is trying to extract double rents from the tenants. The tenants have lodged a complaint with the court and as of that date the case remains unresolved. The building is now "owned by no one" and is currently in recievership. This is in 1905. Am I correct in this assesment, John?

[fiona]

Mr. Latcher has had a bad run. What happened in 1901 to put the building into recievership?
Why was this building in recievership and not the Kanatenah, the Bellvue or any of the others? Is it because latcher tried to use it as co-latteral to cover his debts? the deposition states he was over $1 million in debt. By 1905 standards, he would never get out of debt. This sale /resale to Clinton Wire Cloth Company seems like a shady deal to me.

[dgriffin]

Fiona, I'm assuming they began construction of the Olbiston in 1896, since the GF burned in early March. In which year did tenants (new and old) move into the Olbiston? Are you saying the new building was called the GF and was later renamed the Olbiston? How many years later?

[jon hynes]

CITY MUST NOT PAY
1908 WATER BILL
__________________________________

JUDGE RAY HOLDS IT UP PEND-
ING DECISION ON SUIT
__________________________________

RISLEY FILES A NEW BILL
__________________________________

Amends His Complaints in this Action
Against Consolidated. Water Com-
pany for Annulment of City Contract
- Asks Lower Rates to Consumers.

[jon hynes]

The city of Utica is directed by Judge Ray of the United States Court to retain the money in its possession collected under the tax levy of 1908 for fire protection purpose and the money to be collected for such purposes in 1909 until the further order of the court. The city is also directed to refrain until the further order of the court from recognizing the validity of the water contract between the city and the company and from paying any sums of money on account thereof.

Edwin H. Risley obtained this order yesterday at Norwich in relation to his suit against the Consolidated Water Company of Utica to vacate the city water contract. He filed his amended complaint and asked for the above order. The Court directed also that Seymour D. Latcher, as surviving partner of Northrup A Latcher, and the Olbiston Company be made parties plaintiff in this suit. The defendants are directed to show cause, before Judge Ray at chambers in Norwich. May 17, at 10 a. m., why this order should not be continued until the final hearing in the decision of this case upon the merits, and why Seymour D. Latcher and the Olbiston Company should not be made parties plaintiff in this suit upon the petition served with the amended bill of complaint.

[jon hynes]

The petition of Seymour D. Latcher, Incorporated in the amended complaint, shows that he is the surviving partner of the firm of Northrup & Latcher, owners of the Olbiston apartment house, and that it was assessed in 1901 at $170.000 and that the taxes thereon were $2,951.62. The property of the firm of Northrup & Latcher, it appears, was conveyed to the Olbiston Company in January, 1901, and Mr. Latcher is the manager and has active charge of his business. In addition to the payment of city taxes, which include items for water for fire protection, the owners of the Olbiston building have paid at least $609 per year for water for use in said building. The petition of Mr. Latcher alleges further that the water taxes were imposed contrary to law: that the water company should account for and pay back to the city the amount of water taxes wrongfully collected, and that the city should distribute the same to the parties entitled thereto. Mr. Latcher asks, as surviving partner and manager of the Olbiston Company, that he be made party plaintiff to the amended bill of complaint in the suit brought by Mr. Risley.

[jon hynes]

High Water Rates In Utica

Supporting this petition is an affidavit by Civil Engineer Frank K. Baxter, which brings out clearly the water situation In Utica. Mr. Baxter states that he was employed by the city and has been present during a large part of the time when testimony has been taken in the hearing of the appeal of the water company from the audit of controller of this bill. He gives, the number of miles of different kinds of pipe that have been laid by the water company in different streets, and says that there are still 30.22 miles of streets upon which property rights front in which no pipes have been laid. He gives a description of the reservoirs, conduits and sources of supply of the water company, and mentions the fact that through the city system of pipes water is conveyed to various villages adjacent to the city in the year 1901 the Utica Fire Department reported using 8,234,525 gallons of water for fire protection purposes, and Mr. Baxter says that upon the investigation before the Board of Estimate and Apportionment C. K. Corbin, vice president of the Consolidated Water Company, testified that such quantity of water would be furnished to a private consumer under the company's schedule rate for $445. Mr. Baxter affirms that he has made a careful estimate of the value of the entire plant of the Utica water works system and that In his Judgment it does not exceed $1,700,000. The water taxes collected from the taxpayers of Utica In 1907 were $42,501.95, and the water item in the tax budget for 1908 is $43,xxx.xx minus $500

[jon hynes]

Mr. Baxter refers to a report filed by the Consolidated Water Company with the controller of the State for the year ending October 31, 1908, stating "that the gross earning derived from all sources during" the above period was $257,774.41." Mr. Baxter says that the water rates to private consumers, including manufacturers, are very much higher in Utica than in cities in this State of corresponding population, and that the price charged for fire protection purposes is "grossly in excess of a fair value for the water used for such purposes.

The amended complaint is more comprehensive than the original bill; Judge Ray sustained the demurrer to the previous complaint because it did not allege a sufficient amount of damages involved, to bring the suit into Federal jurisdictions. By the bringing in of two more plaintiffs this technical defect is remedied. The new complaint includes most of the former allegations and adds new ones based on the records. It recites the organization of the West Canada Water Works Company and the Consolidated Water Company, the latter company obtained all the rights and property of the Utica Water Works Company and the West Canada Water Works Company. Since the transfer, the Utica Water Works Company has maintained its corporate existence and has transacted no business, none of the incorporators of the Consolidated Water Company were inhabitants of the city of Utica and it Is alleged that the transfer of the property of the Utica Water Works Company to the Consolidated Company was contrary to, the provisions of the charter of the Utica water Works Company requiring that the trustees of said corporation be inhabitants of the city of Utica. It Is alleged that the purpose of the organization of the Consolidated company was to create and foist upon the inhabitants of the city of Utica and upon the city itself a monopoly in the supplying of water. And that a part of this arrangement, the majority of the directors of said corporation were composed of the directors of the Utica Water Works Company and that the purchase of the Utica Water Works Company and the West Canada Water works company was to prevent competitor and to obtain an excessive price for the protection purposes under the guise of the contract in question. The Consolidated company absorbed the Whitestown Water Works Company and the New Hartford Water Company.