ENPages
1
G. H. DAY CITY TAX COLLECTOR.
OFFICE OF City Tax Collector of Fort Worth, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas 9-5-1902
F.E. Albright
________________ ____: In compliance with your request of ____________________ the following information in relation to lands described is furnished from the records of this office.
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS.
| LOT | BLOCK | ADDITION | REMARKS |
|---|---|---|---|
| E 50ft W 100ft of | E | Pratts |
| YEAR | TO WHOM ASSESSED | VALUE | TAX | COST | INTEREST | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1899 | Unknkown | 1500 | 22.50 |
Judge Albright in 1899 paid on the E 80ft & W 50 ft of Block E at a valuation of $4100.00
G.H. Day Assessor & Collector
3
C. M. TEMPLETON, LAWYER, 214 MAIN STREET
Fort Worth, Texas, Sept 5th 1902.
To the Honorable The City Council of Fort Worth Tex.
Your petitioner F. E. Albright respectfully represents that up to this day he had supposed and believed that all his taxes due the City of Fort Worth had been paid but while in the City Collectors office today was for the first time informed by the Collector G.H. Day that by mistake the E 50 ft W 100 ft Block "E" Pratts addition to said City was left out & reported "Unknown" valued at $1500.00 and the tax for the year 1899 marked unpaid still stands against the Lot and it is liable to be sold.
When my property was assessed for 1899 I gave in Block "E" (which is irregular) including the above lot at $4100.00 and paid on said valuation as shown by the books and City Collector G.H.Days statement hereto attached. Said Block is assessed for taxes of this year at $4400.00
Your petitioner respectfully represents that all the tax that was intended to be assessed against said Block "E" and all in right or just that should have been assessed at against it has been paid and therefore prays your honorable body to remit the erronius & unjust tax of $22.00 now standing against said property and your petitioner will ever pray &c
F.E. Albright
4
Pet Petitioner having paid on E. 80 feet as shown by the assessor's statement, the taxes against the E. 50 feet were evidently paid in the payment on the E. 80 feet. We ^Your finance committee therefore recommend that the petition be
36
FILED 9/19 1902 Jno T. Montgomery
allowed and that the apparent delinquency be cancelled
Wm G Newby JF Henderson Q.T. Moreland
FILED 9/5 1902 Jno Montgomery City Secretary
5
5
5
William D. Williams. Fort Worth, Texas.
Aug.14th, 1902.
The Honorable, the Mayor, and the City Council, Fort Worth,Texas;
Gentlemen:-
In the matter of the abstracts of title to Lots 4,-5,-10,and 11,of xxx Block 4,of Brooks & Bailey's Addition,these being the lots which the city is is endeavering to purchase for school purposes in the 8th ward.
The abstracts show two defects which cannot be remedied,so far as I can see.
First,in the deed from J.P.Smith to J.P.Alexander and Max Elser,conveying the entire ten (10) acre tract,which was afterward laid out in the Brooks & Bailey Addition,the land is located in the Peter Welch, instead of in the William Welch survey,and the deed fails to state in what county and state the land is situated.
Second,the same defects appear in the deed from Alexander and Elser to H.S.Broiles and W.B.Brooks,conveying the same land.
Both deeds,however,contain such a description of the land,as being Block 25 of Field's Addition,lying immediately south of the city limits of the City of Fort Worth,that,I believe,parol evidence will be admissible for its identification,and that such evidence can be had.
As bearing upon my own idea of the unimportance of the defect,I will mention that,having a full knowledge of the same, I bought,in company with another Fort Worth attorney,two (2) lots in the same addition,subject to the same defects. This was done several months ago,before I had any knowledge of the contemplated purchase by the city. I believed the title safe. Respectfully submitted, Wm D. Williams City Attorney.
There are other corrections required before closing, but such others I believe can and will be made without delay. Williams