English translation(Only some of the German files are translated into English.)
StAM_864_Birner. Bavarian archive documents in English:
WB_I_JR_69_0002
26
Clerk: Preventive measure: 15. (number of traps). 16. (Vervoisungsbeschluss-Art. 59) 17. (Referral to another WB)
(W3 to which was referred)
(Objection) 27. (Receipt of objection) 28.
Additional information requested from the respondent)! 129.
Receipt of additional information from the respondent) 130./n bild.ssa (quality deadlines) 31. {Withdrawal of the application) 32. 1: 12.179. (comparison)
33.
refund or fulfillment of amicable agreement)
34.
Order of reprimand to the reparation committee
Final reporter
| on: 10 Dec 1951
in the whole list srwd with / M. on 10 Dec 1951
Individual registration:
Ref .: No. Hombrelli
– Aug. 3, 1950 Neusburger, Nenbürger in 98th in Vorsan
728 Ahlg. 1951
ام
اساس
Ta 2878-7R 22 Remmeling
WB_I_JR_69_0003
Jewish restitution. Successor Organizatdon (IRSO.) .. as. Successor organization according to Article 10.11 MRG: 59 for Benno Neuburger, Goetz Klara, Thekla, Nathan and Otto Regional Office, Munich, Mühlbaurstrasse / IV :. _ well known
represented by power of attorney Bl. Legal succession
(Succession, etc.) Bl.
AGg. (Respondent)
Josef S ix and Mrs. Katharina, Munich-Allach, Lipperts tr.11
through
Power of attorney Bl.
Bet. (Participants) Art 61
as servicemen and …
Mortgagee
as
3
because of (object) property Untermenzing GB. Vol. 48, B1.1907, p.501, pl.Nr.331
Reporting
Registration (delivery) Bl.
Enlighten Accel.
. Contradiction
Events
File delivery to:
2nd value: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 *) Venerelle malu reports se
(Underline where applicable
Disputed amount:
DM
2 – Land 3 = Land rights 4 = Shares, holdings in other trading companies (e.g. GmbH shares). Securities 5 = art, cult and valuable objects 6 = amounts of money 7 = miscellaneous
Manz AG. 8.6.51
0004
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
301 Fürther Str. Nuremberg
To the
Central registration office
Reparation Authority:
職。 02972
Friedberg near Bad Nauheim
This registration corresponds to advertisement no.
The Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. New York (address to be used: Nuremberg, Fürther Strasse 301), which is regulated by the Implementing Ordinance No. 3 of June 23rd. 1948 was recognized as a successor organization within the meaning of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Law No. 59 of the Military Government, makes the following registration on the basis of Law No. 59 of the Military Government: 1. Name and last known address of the Jewish persecuted:
Benno Meubuerger, Muenchen, Trogeratx, bilis Klaerchen Goetz, Thelia Goeta, Nathan Coeta, Otto Goeta, all of them
In Muenchen, Fumtoxdate. 6/2 2. Name and address of the person liable for reimbursement (current owner or owner of the claimed asset):
Josef $ i * and Katharina, Muenchen-Allach, Lippertstr. 11.
Feb 16, w1950
Acker in Untermensing on Woonacherstr., Land register for tax community Unterstenking Ba, 3 Bl. 144 5. 437 n. 331.
of að
Request notification notified on:
This property has been subject to confiscation under Law No. 59 of the Military Government. In the event that the above description should no longer apply due to the rewriting of the land register or for any other reason, the correction
reserved for description. 4. The right according to Art. 16 of the law is expressly reserved. 5. a) A natural reimbursement is required; b) In case of reimbursement in nature is not possible or in case of deterioration of the claimed property, the right is exercised
reserve the right to claim compensation, the amount of which will be disclosed in the course of the proceedings; c) All further claims based on the law are hereby asserted. We reserve the right to indicate their numerical height.
If the persons named under 2 are not currently the owner of the position, the claims asserted are directed against the current owner or owners of the position. In any case, the asserted claims for compensation are also directed against all persons currently unknown to us who have owned or owned the property since the confiscation.
We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration has been given to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurately and in accordance with the truth.
For the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization:
Date : …..
…… 91048
Wesna (power of attorney is available from the central registration office).
0005
as
tiaivot M ៗ ដដែល។ 9ycli5 75W od 9 tot nu a
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
REGIONAL OFFICE
b
Away
513
o bb./ Miunchen mage – 02.04: 1950
Munich, July 26, 1950.
Dr.Hg / Yes. No. AZ of the WB. JR 69 Our AZ: I / M – 799
-1024
would of
To the restitution authority I
– Upper Bavaria – Muenchen 2 Arcisstr. 11 / TT
dust
In matters
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION INC., New York, (hereinafter referred to as JRSO), as successor organization, beneficiary;
(Persecuted: Benno Neuburger, Klara Goetz,
Thekla, Nathan and Otto Goetz represented by
by Dr Ernst Me z ge Legal Director, IRSO Munich, Muehlbaurstr. 8 Applicant;
against Josef S IX and Mrs. Katharina,
Muenchen-Allach, Tippertstrasse 11
– respondent;
due to the restitution of a property in Untermenzing Pl.No.332, presented in GB for Untermenzing Vol. 48, B1.1907, 8.501
Involved:
City of Munich
as serviceman and mortgage creditor
We filed a claim for reimbursement in accordance with Art.
0006
the JRSO as successor organization through the. 3. AVO to MRG 59. Due to its timely registration, the JRSO has therefore acquired the position: of the entitled person (Art, 11. Para. 2, MRG 59), since no registration of an entitled person, or alleged entitled person, until December 31 Took place in 1948.
Publicly notarized power of attorney duly deposited with the reparation authority.
is requested:
and transfer of the same by the persecuted person has to be regarded as not having occurred with the effect that the JRSO is the owner of the same, namely since the date of the loss of rights by the persecuted person, namely the 23.
to surrender to the JRSO, step by step against the assignment of a possible compensation claim by the JRSO because of the purchase price that was not freely available to the persecuted person.
In the land register, step by step against repayment, in accordance with the Conversion Act, the purchase price that the persecuted person freely dispose of and the amount of the encumbrances existing before and since the withdrawal, unless they have been replaced by any other remaining encumbrances. .
.
to pay for the benefits drawn and to issue an invoice for them.
To tolerate women well.
Clear.
In order to justify these requests, in addition to the facts cited in the registration, and in particular with regard to the process of withdrawal; The amount and fate of the remuneration paid at the time, and the load limit, put forward the following:
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0007
The property was sold to the SIX couple for a purchase price of RM 2,500.00 with a document from Paul Bauer dated June 23, 1939 UrNo. 1875. The purchase contract is accompanied by an interim ruling from the AG Muenchen, which contains the statement that the sellers were Jews and according to Par.8 of the vo. about the use
Jewish property demolition of property by Jews with the approval of the Reg.Praes. need. As long as the counter-evidence has not been provided, we are of the opinion that the purchase price has been paid into a blocked account and has not come into the free disposal of the seller,
the legal transaction according to Artoh of the MRG 59 is contestable.
According to Article 3 of the MRG, there is a presumption of withdrawal. The fact that the legal transaction was subject to the use of Jewish assets shows that it would not have come about without the rule of National Socialism.
Dr. E. We zger Legal Director, IRSO Munich
garnish
cc / WB
Six Stadtgde.Mch.
0008Lettering
22215
Munich
01.972
Benno Neuburger, Menchen, Trogerstriklis Klaerchen Goetz, Thekla Goetz, Nathan Goetz, Otto Goetz, all in Munich, Purfordstrasse 6/2
Josef six and Katharina, luenchen-Allach, Lippertstrasse 11
Field in Untermenzing on Moosacherstr. Land register for stgde. Untermenzing, Vol. 3, B1.14, p. 437, P1.331.
9.10.48.
Wiesner.
Do the padhtikkeidis
Dr
Meger
Legal Director, TRSO Munich
ORSO OFFICIAL
OFFICE
ONAL
0009
A claim for reimbursement in accordance with Art
Successor organization by the 3rd AVO to the MRG 59. Due to its timely registration, the JRSO has therefore acquired the position of the entitled person (Art. 11 Para. 2, MRG 59), since no registration of an authorized person, or alleged authorized person, until 31. Dec. 1948.
properly filed, publicly certified power of attorney.
the persecuted person has to be regarded as not having occurred with the effect that the JRSO is the owner of the same, namely since the date of the loss of rights by the persecuted person, namely ……. 28.4.-3.7 ..
Step by step against the assignment of a possible compensation claim by the JRSO due to the purchase price not being freely available to the persecuted person
Step by step against repayment, in accordance with the Conversion Act, the purchase price that the persecuted person freely dispose of and the amount of the charges that existed before the withdrawal and that have been repaid since then, provided that no other remaining charges have taken their place.
the release to the JRSO of the dated
Trustee association
accepted uses.
pay and submit an invoice.
applications, as well as because of the load limit and the continuation of rights, or the liability for liability disputes exist, to decide on points a), b) and c) in advance.
0010
and in particular with regard to the process of withdrawal, the amount and fate of the remuneration paid at the time, and the load limit, the following submitted:
Benno Neuburger, Nathan Goetz and Otto Goetz, the latter also acting for their mother Regina and their sisters Klara and Thekla Goetz, sold the properties described above to the respondent on February 18, 1937 by means of document no. 570 from the notary Helmuth Schieok in Munich.
The purchase price was RM 20,020, Devon received a partial amount of RM 14,000. paid by handing over 2 sheoks; another partial amount of RM 2,000. had to be deposited at the notary’s office for the removal of a security pharmacy; the rest of RM 4,020 … half had to be paid to B.Neuburger, the other half to the bank account of Regina Goetz and her child or to the company H Aufhaeuser in Munich immediately after the proof of payment of the capital gains tax was provided by the seller. On April 28, 37, the respondent was entered in the land register as the new owner of the acquired property. It is not yet clear when the remainder of the purchase price reached Haendo der Sellers.
What is certain is that the sellers were Jews. This circumstance, together with the time of the sale, justifies the defendant’s obligation to reimburse in accordance with Art. 4 REG 59.
We reserve the right to amend the application.
Dr. E. Mesger Legal Director JRS O Munich
CC.W.B. 1 Krauss-Maffei 1 fan 2
0011
Absahrift.
Woenshen 7630 b
bomo Neuburger, formerly Murenahen Irogerstr. 44 and Regina Goetz, Trupher Niuenohan Rumfordstr. 5/11, this in Getergeneinsahaft with their children Yathan, Otto, Thekla and Klara.
Krauss-Maffei AG, Muonohen.Allaah, Krausschaffeistr. 2
, 您 器 系 否 器 主婚人 数 整数 經營 幾 着 素素, 統 整装 集 器,
一些 绝美 数 Ad $ $ 437 Bl 144 .84 29 $ 229 Bl 1297, Pinr 604, 683, 694, (Apoker).
11/25/48
Co
ch Dr. E.M@r Legal Director Jrso Munich
Puor the correctness:
0012
AKl. 97455
RO
2
3
PART – Off zu_8_
XXXXXX from the land register for Untermenzing Volume 38 Sheet 1609 Page_526_ Inventory :. 11r.10 Plan No. 688 Grosser Moosacherwegacker to … 0.736 ha No. 11 Plan No. 694 Soldiers field, Acker to ……… 0.79
0794 ha No. 12 plan No. 604 / Ballauferacker, Acker zu …..
0: 419 ha nos. Lo and 1l of volume 29 sheet 1297 p. 228 and no. 12 of volume 8 sheet: 144 p. 437 transferred here on April 28, 1937.
sas
Department I: Previous owner: Götz and Necburger each half
July 5, 1916 and December 30, 1981.
in Volume 29 B1.1297 and Volume 3 Bl.144. Previous owner in volume 38 sheet 1609: No.] Cashier Klara Schwanzer ereb, violinist in Bamberg
Conclusion of March 12, 1936, registered on August 22, 1936.
Current owner: Ir.2: Lokomotivfabrik Kraus und Co., J.A.llaffei, Alttiengesellschaft
inchen, abandonment from February 18, 1937. Purchase contract from February 18, 1937, Not.Helmuth Schieck in Munich TENr. 570. Division II:
No.3: 10.11 gas-water pipeline, and right of use for the town
Munich, registered on April 28, 1937. (May 15, 1926) ITT department:
Without entry.
Free of charge
For the correctness of the move: Tentsgericht wünchen, Rundbuchamt
Nünchen, on February 14, 1950.
$ 9P
Vienna
hot Alser
Mizer) JH Inspector
m
(-Warriors) aploj, insp.
A.
0013
March 27, 1951
As the reparation authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Munich, Arcisstr. 11 / II Tel. 1837 58431
JR Ia 22 AZ .: Please state when answering!
Pursuant to Art. 51 Para. 1 of the MRG 59 (Reimbursement Act), you are hereby requested to declare your claim for reimbursement within two months.
If no objection is raised within this period, the restitution authority shall grant the application by resolution if the legal requirements are met.
If you raise an objection, you are requested to submit the same in multiple copies (one for the reparation authority, one for each applicant) with the reference number.
Investments:
To be sent to:
1 JRSO short registration
v.25.11.48 1 registration supplement
6.6.2.51
Locomotive factory Krauss Maffei AG. E. Munich-Allach
I.v.
Maun
For delivery to the post office
March 28, 1951
(M a i r).
The document archives of the Cresca office of the Wiederautniemu basi ehörde herhavers
Lidl: idlauf. To: Urzuzusbcamta of the Coachüftzstrile i reparation authority Upper Bavaria to
Z-suggestion of adding da..Antrag- “— P – o .o3 miigoielli
TV.
The Urkaza never the business id up 🙂
27.3 / 6.
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0014
JRSO
Registration of the reimbursement claim. V 25.11.48 U. decision of
Addition of 6.2.51 summons to the appointment on ….
e Name of the document
Postal delivery documents
At
on the delivery of a letter with the following inscription: Business no. JR Ia 22
Krauss-Maffei locomotive factory Sender: Reparation office
Authority Upper Bavaria (WB I) Munich 2, Arcisstrasse 11 / II
Simplified delivery.
I have received the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker
here today – between …… o’clock
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual
companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
(Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations
and associations (including trading companies, etc.])
– Company owner (before
represent
the – recipient and surname):
the – head – legal representative – authorized co-owner –
or chief
etc. in person.
even in the apartment – the business | room (business premises) –
in person in the apartment – the business premises (business premises) –
……. to hand over.
… to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner in the business premises
(First and Last Name): ……..
Binding margin
– as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the – head – legal representative
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented, b) the – head of the legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent – was not present, the M
A .. …. . ………… to hand over.
I did not find myself there, the … assistant …………. clerk
..
to hand over.
since I am the empränger – company owner (first and last name):.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – Head of the statutory. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent
member, b) a serving person.
I did not find myself in the apartment, where a) the one belonging to his family woke up
sénen housemates, namely the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
to hand over. b) de ……… adults serving in the family
….. to hand over.
in the local apartment
……..
…… did not find myself there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
to hand over. b) de ……. adults serving in the family
……. to hand over,
or landlord.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
I did not find myself in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, d …….. living in the same house – landlord … – Landlord ……. – namely de … de …….. was ready for acceptance.
not found in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not feasible, de ……. living in the same house
Landlord …… – Landlord …… – namely de …
…… was ready to accept.
(Only occurs in cases 1,
2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient here neither an apartment nor a business space. (Business premises) I left the letter at the place of delivery.
* I have noted the day of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was sent. M inhen will that
… 195.2
(Continued overleaf)
WB 15 10 000 11.50
0015 (title page)
0016
Restitution Authority I Hof, Kóple /
MUNICH, February 20, 1951 1949 Upper Bavaria
Arcisstraße 11 / II file number: JR Ia 22
Telephone: 2831-39 1831 (if you have any questions, please quote the file number I)
Party traffic only Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. MRG 59 – JRSO as follow-up org. ./. Locomotive factory Krauss-Maffai AG.
Your reference I / M 798 reference:
meet
Investments:
For the purpose of delivering the registration to the first acquirer, Klara Schwanzer, née Geiger, in Bamberg, you are requested to provide the full current address of those named.
I.V. man (Ma i r)
To-die JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8
grs hr on
Feb. 21, 1951 wbgl on ………
20,216
0017
Redress authority
Upper Bavaria Müncftempe, Arcissiraße 11
Munich
27th of March
the……
……. 1950
JR Ia 22
Ref.:. (Always specify for answers and entries)
Re: MRG 59 Art. 61 Para. 4 (Refund note) Reference: Property (heritable building right) in: Untermenzing, Pl.Nr.688 Gr.Moosacherwe gacker
to 0.736 ha
Starts in 2,694 soldier fields covering 0.794 hectares of tax community. U menzing
“604 Ballauferacker to 0.419 ha Volume: 38 … Page526 ….. Sheet: 1609 …
On the basis of Act No. 59 of the Military Government (Restitution Act), the restitution of the aforementioned land / leasehold has been applied for. In accordance with Art. 61 Para. 4 and Art. 72, a request is made to enter the reimbursement note in the land register free of charge.
To the district court – land registry
M ü ne h en
1.V. mouse
(Seal)
(M a ir)
written on
given March 128, 1959
fishing rod. Rovinblatt WBA (Elist tuldguhg of the reimbursement note)
Manz AG
27
316.
0018
Redress authority
Upper Bavaria Müncftempe, Arcissiraße 11
Munich
27th of March
the……
……. 1950
JR Ia 22
Ref.:. (Always specify for answers and entries)
EL …!
District Court of Munich, Grimdbuch Department,
(13b) Munich 35, the ……. APR., 19.5.1 …. 194 ..
Prielmayerstr. 5.
No
Subject: Because of HsNr … Current majorities:
Reparation 1 authority Obb.7 Munich Elngog. 1 2nd APR. 1951
do.
Appendix
At the request of the reparation authority Upper Bavaria from. Az ……
…. nurde today according to Article 61 IV of the Restitution Act, with the neighboring property in the land register for ..hon. M … 666..B1..38 … S .. .. entered the
Reimbursement claim of the previous owner, ..
AD a) The Restitution Authority
Oberbayera, Miinchen, Areisstr, baie current owner c) the creditors.
0019
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
ROEN
.
MUNICH – ALLACH reparation
Telephone 81321 To the
bobo de Obb., Munich Long-distance call Munich F72
Telegraph 063/865 reparation authority input.
Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach AOR 1059
Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. Upper Bavaria
ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed.
Bentley’s code. Munich
IRTA
Bank accounts:
Bayerische Creditbank Munich Arcisstrasse 11
Landeszentralbank München 6/851 Postscheckkonto München 731
Your sign
Your message from
Day
27.3.51
Our mark KS-Rt / F
April 16, 1951
Reference:
AZ .: JR Ia 22
We object to the JRSO’s claim for reimbursement in the case of Neuburger and Goetz.
We initially deny that the reimbursement claim was made on time. The confirmation attached to the application does not provide sufficient documentation for this. We can only recognize the timely assertion of the claim as proven if this is confirmed in writing by the central registration office Friedberg near Bad Nauheim.
There is no case of withdrawal here. On February 18, 1937, the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz sold to us the parcels specified in the application of February 6, 1951 at the price of RM 20,020. The purchase price was paid in February 1937.
In 1937 we acquired parcels of land in the vicinity of our factory premises in Munich-Allach from numerous neighbors for the purpose of the later expansion of the factory premises and for settlement purposes for our workers. The area in question in the present case is for a larger one. Settlement, for which the building plans are already available to the responsible authorities. At the time, negotiations with the property owners were conducted through a property company. The total area we acquired at that time is around 120 days, of which the properties claimed here account for around 6 days, i.e. around 5%. At that time, all sellers were granted the same prices and conditions. The community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz was not discriminated against. The prices correspond to the legal maximum prices of the time; Even the non-Jewish sellers received no other prices. The purchase of the parcels constitutes a withdrawal within the meaning of Law 59
us therefore not. Copy informal
-2 to JRSO
Farmlos communicated on: 20.4.57 The 20 April 1954
SVI 9.50
20,000 beer bottles
The Kurdish official at the office of the reparation authority in Oberbaven
0020
(KM)) KRAUSS – MAFFEL. STOCK COMPANY. MUNICH-ALLACH.
Sheet 2 to the letter of April 16, 1951 to the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria
Munich, Arcisstrasse 11
The real estate company commissioned by us approached the individual owners and made them an offer, regardless of whether the owners are people who fall under the Nuremberg Laws or not. The landowners concerned were completely free to choose whether they wanted to make use of our purchase offer or not. The prices we approved at the time exceeded the tax unit values by 25-30%. No coercion has been exercised against anyone.
The properties are therefore not withdrawn from the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz for reasons of race, religion, nationality or ideology (Article 1, Law 59). The deal was in no way contrary to common decency and was not caused by persecution (Article 2). The presumption of withdrawal (Article 3) is refuted by the fact that the community of heirs was paid a reasonable price. We paid the seller the full purchase price. If the proceeds were later withdrawn from the sellers through measures taken by the Reich, which we do not know, this is in any case in no way related to the transaction concluded between the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz and us. This deal would have been concluded between the parties even without the rule of National Socialism and is therefore not subject to challenge. (Article 4)
The fact that no one from the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz has so far made claims for reimbursement allows the conclusion that those directly affected see the business as a regular business act and not as a confiscation. We therefore request that the JRSO’s claims be rejected.
A copy is included.
Kr a u ss – M a f f e i
Public company Multito ppalain
0021 0022 Not much there
0023
Registration of the reimbursement claim. Decision from the summons to the appointment on ..
Brief description of the document
Postal delivery certificate
about the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
JR Ia 22 business no ….
At
Company. Sender: Reparation Office
Krauss-Maffei authority Upper Bavaria (WB I) Munich 2, Arcisstraße 11 / II
Munich-Allach Here a form for the delivery certificate.
Krauss-Maffeistr. 2 Simplified delivery.
in
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker at – Uller
here today – between
MM
clock
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, Einzel-1 (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
and associations (including trading companies, etc.)
the – recipient – and surname):
Company owner (previous |
the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner –
or chief
etc. in person
the business
even in the apartment – room (business premises) –
in person in – the apartment – the business room (business premises)
to hand over.
to hand over.
Binding margin
since I am in the business premises (business | da in the business premises (business premises) during the | local) the recipient company owner’s normal business hours
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented
authorized co-owner – was not present, assistant …………… clerk
| there handed over to the w .. employed by the recipient.
M A RA …………….. handed over.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the head – statutory. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
ghed, B) a serving person.
even not found in the apartment,
in the local apartment … there
……… I did not find myself there, a) the adult housemate belonging to his family to the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely marriage
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
to the son – to the daughter … |
to hand over. b) de ………. adult serving in the family b) de …. adult serving in the family.
………. to hand over.
or landlord.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name): …
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even not found in the apartment,
in the apartment also the delivery to one of the family
did not find delivery to a listening adult housemate or to
Adult housemates belonging to the family or to an adult serving in the family
an adult person serving in the family was not but not feasible, d …….. was feasible in the same, the …….. house living in the same house – landlord …… . – Rented! – Landlord ……. – Landlord. – namely de .. ter ……. -, namely de …… de …….. was ready for acceptance. d …… was ready to accept.
2 and 3.)
Since acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
Mrema: Olle, the 25th, O ….. 1951
(Continued overleaf)
WB 15 10 000 11.50
0024 – 0025. Nothing
0026
–
The factual and legal situation was discussed with the parties. The defendant’s representative fundamentally denies any reimbursement claims by the JRSO. As a justification, it is asserted that the A-opponent acquired land under the same conditions from different owners to expand the factory premises and for settlement purposes for the workers. The sellers would have been free to accept or reject the A-opponent’s offers. The · A opponent had paid the maximum prices allowed at the time to all sellers. Since there is no causal connection with political or racial persecution measures, the A-opponent rejects any claim for reimbursement.
The representative of the JRSO reserved the right to comment in writing on the objections of the A-opponent and to declare by 7.7.51 whether the reimbursement claims would be maintained or withdrawn. If the reimbursement claims are upheld, the documents showing that the previous owners were Jews must be submitted. In this case, the matter is to be referred to the Reparation Chamber at the Regional Court of Munich I at the request of the respondent’s representative,
disposal
Copy of the protocol to:
1) JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8 2) Krauss-Maffei AG.
Munich-Allach
Informally communicated June 13, 1951
The notary office of the Wiedergut u stenorde Oberbayer
0027
KRAUSS – MAFFEI. STOCK COMPANY. MUNICH – ALLA CH
Power of attorney
==================
We authorize our Mr. Georg G r u be r to represent our company in the matter of the reparation authority ./. Krauss Maffei.
Mü.-Allach, June 6th, 1951 K-St / s.
K r a vs S – M a f f e i
Corporation
volkmh 13. Prime
www
ppa.
i.V.
SV8 3000 5. 50 beer
0028
Toil from the land register for Untermenzing vol. 38, 31att 1609, page 526. – – – – – – – – – – Inventory directory:
No. 10 F r. 688 Big Loosacherwendoker for …. 0.30 e ur. 11 11.11, 694 oldstenacker, Aoler au ……….. 0.794 ha dr. 12 1.1r. 604 Balleuforacker, icker to …. 0.419 hi
von-Volume 3, Blatt 144, 5.437 here or transferred i April 28, 1937.
Department I:
turbasitsom: Gitz and new number 19 delite
5th July 1916 and 30th Jozomder. in saad. Pero127 and Doud1.11.
Now there is greatness. 2 Lokomotivfabrik krone und Co., fol. Maifei. in.
Painchen, resolution of February 18, 1937 and inetr. 16. Sales contract v. February 18, 1937, lottelman Schieck in Inchen, URAT ,!
Abtoilure II: ir. 3; 10, 1] Gas-aggerleitura-lodeniitzungsrech ‘: thr the city
Dirchen, an etr. m 8,41937 (May 15, 1926)
Department III: without Dintron,
A MTsNr the Richti-koit des Ausgaron
A pricht solnchen -ab. Land register Nichen, May 1951
Manh
Jock
HEN
Ceb.froi.!
Justinr.
0029
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Widdergutmachuudism boede Obb./ Munich
MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 44 522 – 44531
Work. – JULY 7, 1951
Munich, July 6, 1951 Dr. H Ro AZ: 17 M 798
To the reparation authority I – Upper Bavaria
Munich 2 Arcissttaasse 117 II
Subject: JR 22 reimbursement (Neuburger Goetz). /. Kraus-Maffei AG. Object parcels in Untermenzing.
Rome
In this matter we are to declare by July 7th, 1951 whether we will maintain our claims or withdraw them.
In order to be able to answer this question, we have written to the mandatory Ite supplement. However, since we have not yet received a settlement, we kindly ask you to kindly extend the deadline by around 14 days until July 20, 1951,
We assume that the opponent also agrees with this, enclose a copy of our letter and therefore ask that you refrain from referring it to the Chamber until the decision has been reached.
JRSO MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE Dr. E, Meziger, Director
Joan
1.4. Dr. Kurt # ago
La
Formlo
Enclosed copy of letters to Krauss-Maffei Copy of the above letter for Krauss-Maffei Ag. Munich Allach
Kraussmaffeistr 5 10.7.59 mani Fermlos communicated
July 1, 1951 pe / (clerk of the clerk office of the reparation authority Oberite
0030
EWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Widdergutmachuudism boede Obb./ Munich
for the
Menchon, June 18, 1951. Dr. Kg.Ro AZ: I / 1 798
kra u s8 – M af lei AQ. 2. Hdno Merrn Director Georg G r u be r Muenchen – Allach Krauss- Nanostrasse 5
Subject: Refund JRSO (Meuburger – Gosta »
Parcels in Untermenzing.
We come back to the gueta negotiations conducted at the reparation authority and in particular to your brief of April 16. KS / Rt / F, in which the assertion is made that with the total of 120 tgw acquired at the time, all sellers were granted the same prices and conditions. We would be grateful if you gave us a few who at that time made purchases with other buyers besides Heuburger Goets, so that we are able to check the correctness of your assertion. We thank Twen for your efforts, which should only serve to clear up and clear up the repayment and recommend ms
Sincerely, JRSO MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE Dr. E. Mezges, Pirector
0031
RODERIE
Reparation authority I Upper Bavaria
inchen, November 19th. 1951 Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 / III Telephone number: 20354, 27666
povo bo 19 Ion9 Bnetno pobo de ton ORDED a brone B dead PAS sro Av. JR Ia 22 ocarameter
etterLOTOOK 110: the
OoNOV 10 Reference Register No. 110
20 NOV. 1951 C
ommons m iin goeil I Teatros
Cloud b TO THE In terms of things
with ……….. Annexes Jewish Resitution Successor Organization Inc. (JRSO) as successor organization according to Art. 10.11 MRG 59 for: Neuburger, Benno and Regina Götz. tet les conditions
(Applicant) represented by Regional Office Munich Mühlbaurstrasse 8 / IV … from the dead
SDEN DOS renojosa no 88 -anon PH 29 Dnes Lokomotivfabrik K ra u S S – M a f fe i AG, Munich-Allach
(Respondent) GO
STITATS soortentioned TI represented by Gruber. Georg, in Krauss-Maffei AG, Munich-Allach
I NDIO Isbaengd nois i noies Is The Nortoise as follows
ISOV on Borob nehotne sred no Jaioafisao il teba
1921st non solo
Decision: C o robodisi The thing is to the Olov toroiobhten or
hen, ia bootlomeromonas Jose acts 5 Restitution Chamber at the District Court of Munich I referred referred: rode sbric r ü n d e
19 NOV 20 Degasesenes foe
919 omo poenados geöfnoeg gee it.
: ascoa13H
1b Noia STV 10 10 The formal sequence of the procedure can be seen on the overview sheet … 1 p. 2o [windogts deid on
free down rad The JRSO demands with a short registration dated November 25, 1948 and an additional registration dated February 6, 1951, the reimbursement of the plots No. 688, 694 and 604 of the tax community Munich-Untermenzing, which the Jewish previous owners Benno Neuburger and Regina Götz, each as co-owners Half on February 18, 1937 for 20,020.00 RM to the respondent. The reimbursement claims are based on Art. 4 MRG 59. :
The JRSO asserts the reimbursement claims as those of the military government according to Ausf. Vo. No. 3 in conjunction with Article 10 ff MRG 59 appointed successor organization for Jewish assets.
The reparation authority could not find in its own file or in the central file of the country that the jü =
Zozo offices:
To the reparation chamber at the Munich Regional Court I Munich (with file JR Ia 22). equal day Referred case JR Ia 23 is pointed out.
Dispatch notification to the parties issued on Nov. 20, 1951. Cathy
0032
The persecuted persons or legal successors or allegedly authorized persons in relation to the property registered for reimbursement have registered claims for reimbursement in Bad Nauheim by December 31, 1948. Accordingly, it must be assumed that according to Art. 11 Para. 2 MRG 59 the JRSO has acquired the legal status of the persecuted on the basis of its registration,
reco e 990 D
a te The abbreviated registration was sent to the respondent on 93 March 29, 1951 with the supplement to the registration. With a brief dated April 16, 1951, she raised an objection in good time and submitted that there was no case of withdrawal. In 1937, the respondent acquired land from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the factory premises in Munich-Allach in order to be able to expand the factory premises and build a settlement for the workers. The negotiations with the individual property owners were conducted by a property company. 19 All sellers were treated equally. The Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Götz were not discriminated against. The real estate company made offers to the individual landowners and the landowners were completely free to choose whether or not to accept the offer. The purchase price corresponded to the legal maximum prices at the time and was reasonable. Since the legal transaction contested by the JRSO came about without any coercion and would also have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism, the JRSO’s claims for reimbursement are unfounded. The quality deadline of 7 June 1951 remained inconclusive. Since the JRSO did not withdraw its claims for reimbursement within the initially reserved declaration period, the matter had to be referred to the responsible reparation chamber at the Munich District Court I upon application by both parties.
erotus The same procedure JR Ia 23 is referred to the reparation chamber at the regional court Munich I at the same time.
.
.
. asta Done F.
9
vacuum cleaner
0033 Nothing
0034
The persecuted persons or legal successors or allegedly authorized persons in relation to the property registered for reimbursement have registered claims for reimbursement in Bad Nauheim by December 31, 1948. Accordingly, it must be assumed that according to Art. 11 Para. 2 MRG 59 the JRSO has acquired the legal status of the persecuted on the basis of its registration,
reco e 990 D
a te The abbreviated registration was sent to the respondent on 93 March 29, 1951 with the supplement to the registration. With a brief dated April 16, 1951, she raised an objection in good time and submitted that there was no case of withdrawal. In 1937, the respondent acquired land from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the factory premises in Munich-Allach in order to be able to expand the factory premises and build a settlement for the workers. The negotiations with the individual property owners were conducted by a property company. 19 All sellers were treated equally. The Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Götz were not discriminated against. The real estate company made offers to the individual landowners and the landowners were completely free to choose whether or not to accept the offer. The purchase price corresponded to the legal maximum prices at the time and was reasonable. Since the legal transaction contested by the JRSO came about without any coercion and would also have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism, the JRSO’s claims for reimbursement are unfounded. The quality deadline of 7 June 1951 remained inconclusive. Since the JRSO did not withdraw its claims for reimbursement within the initially reserved declaration period, the matter had to be referred to the responsible reparation chamber at the Munich District Court I upon application by both parties.
erotus The same procedure JR Ia 23 is referred to the reparation chamber at the regional court Munich I at the same time.
.
.
. asta Done F.
9
vacuum cleaner
E ODŠTr oop Tube I. V. 19 decenas
signed Dr. Hennig For the correctness of the copy.
Mülasben, November 19, 1951 (Dr. Henn i g)
The document shark of tosi S dor Wiòde fyltedentnybei tuon
Het duo intern
ess
MUNCH
CUEN.NO
Ever
Ver
0035
EWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
MOHLBAUR STRASSE 8 / IV. TELEPHONE 445 22-44531
To the reparation chamber at the District Court I.
Munich, January 22nd, 1952 Ga./Sd. AZ. I / M – 798
Munich
district Court
24 JAN. 1952 | Münden!
In terms of JRSO (Neuburger)
./.
Copying of the letter to the application – Stette
n
Krauss-Maffei-A.G.
Act 2. I WK V 68/51
sent andet
becomes the reimbursement claim
maintain.
It is undisputed that the Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Goetz have the plan numbers 604, 688 and 694 by contract dated February 18, 1937 to the application
enemy sold.
It is undisputed that the respondent has also acquired a number of further parcels in the same complex of land, namely 605, 606, 608, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616 1/3, 617 to 627, 670, 673, 674, 676, 677, 678, 684, 685, 689, 693.
-2
0036
This fact is not sufficient to justify the defendant’s objection under Art. 4 Para. Ia. We refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950 (RzW 1950, -page 302, No. 10):
“The fact that neighbors parcel at the same time and under the same conditions
Lenverk aeufe have made can only then
a certain probability that the testator has sold the parcel in question without any particular coercion, if there are no neighbors for this property
special reasons for their parcel sale
The respondent would have to prove that the non-Jewish Veraeus
Those of the land had no special reasons, e.g. urgent need for money, for the sale.
III.
But there is also the following: Since 1937, a number of property owners have consistently refused to apply for their properties within the same complex
to sell opponent. It is your own
Tower of the plot 605 Ž – a house has been built on this plot in the meantime – 607, 607 à, 609, 616 – there is also a house on this plot
-3
0037
Proof: Testimony from Mr. Georg Hackl.
If the court deems it necessary, can
The owners of the following parcels are also questioned: 6053 Mathias and Elsa Statzner, née Schader,
Parkstrasse 34, 607 Jakob Ostermeier and Viktoria Engelhart b.
Ostermeier, Ruess-Strasse 36,
Vio
Josef and Franziska Irinkl, Untermenzing,
Kirchenstrasse 9, 681) 682; Wolfgang and Anna Frey in Scheidegg.
All these witnesses will confirm that the respondent tried to purchase the property at a price of RM 3,500 per day, but that the owners refused to sell at this price
sern.
We summarize:
The respondent intended to use the whole complex of land from plan no. 604 to plan no. 628, and from plan no. 670 to plan no. 694 to get hold of. It is true that it offered all the owners the same price. However, not all owners decided to sell. Therefore
the defendant’s attempt must fail, the
-5
0038
– 5 –
To provide evidence that the business with all its essential components came about even without the rule of National Socialism
were.
Two copies are included.
Yalewali
System.
Walter
G a 1 e w s k i
0039
– File number: I wx 68151..69751. Winchen, the ……… 1954
Reparation Chamber. at the District Court of Munich I.
e ri n 8 best immune
BE
….. before .. !! … o’clock, boardroom 257/111.
through delivery of responses due to a) Applicant – representative (address B1.) – Representative (* @, party
…….
III. File recovery: 1) Yoruwd why..for … Norint inter in Kutcumuenzing
3.) Einhals wotlasheid har 19 36 and 1984 recover, IV. “Addition on charge” to A.St.- A.Gel
the procedure I, had been 68151 and I wkr 49/51 for the timely negotiation and decision-making with each other. .. … d ……..
The chairman: Regarding the delivery to har .Thana-Mafter 3) Asks minister>
to Pozí through the court week. m i with persistent form
1) il ne lur. hift.m. 1), e). 3) recovered
29.1.5e your
Mense
www
0040
IRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei AG
Deadline March 4, 1952 Postal delivery certificate for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
“
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
JR: 9: 0:
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr.
JR I WKV 68751 Number of pages d. A .:
Munich. Regional Office
Munich Mühlbauerstraße S / V /
I have the above letter in my capacity as a postal clerk to 2 here today = between ………… and ………… ……. … at noon (time can only be given on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual || (form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporate companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including commercial companies, etc.) to the – recipient – company owner
the – head – legal representative 1. To the
– Co-owner authorized to represent – (first and last name) recipient
or chief
even in – the apartment – the business premises in person in – the apartment – the business premises etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person met – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – representation
authorized co-owner – was not present, the unula employed by the recipient there
m au passed.
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
as there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
by a serving person
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
, handed over, b) the adults serving in the family
in the local apartment
did not find myself, there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
to hand over. b) the …… adults serving in the family
to hand over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
or landlord.
as there is no special business premises (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent
I did not find myself in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, the … landlord living in the same house … – landlord … , – namely de ..
in the flat. did not find, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de ….. in the same house – landlord … – landlord., namely de
de
was ready to accept.
de
was ready to accept.
(Only applicable in cases 1, 2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
Voddau the
195.14 ..
30,000 5.51 F. B.
(Continued overleaf)
0041
0042
IRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei AG
Deadline March 4, 1952 Postal delivery certificate for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
the City Council of the City of Munich – Section LO –
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr. JR I WKV 68-69 / 51
Munich high-rise, Blumenstr.
Number of sheets d. A .:
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker to … M 4A here today = between ………… and ……. am ……. …. at noon (time can only be given on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual | (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
| companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including trading companies, etc.) 1. To the recipient – company owner
the – head – legal representative – representative recipient (first and last name)
authorized co-owner – or head of department
even in – the apartment – the business premises in person in – the apartment – the business premises etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
……………….
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person met – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner – was not present, there the oset damer employed by the recipient
to hand over.
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner –
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
, handed over, b) the adults serving in the family
to hand over.
in the local apartment
…… did not find myself there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter …
to hand over. b) the …… adults serving in the family ….
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
or landlord.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even in the apartment, the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, the landlord living in the same house … – landlord …, – namely de ……
in the apartment …….., also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de …… living in the same house – Landlord …. – Landlord … namely de.
de
was ready to accept.
de
was ready to accept.
(Only applicable in cases 1, 2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered. ..M iclau …, the 26th
A t h … 195.2.
30,000 5.51 F. B.
(Continued overleaf)
0043-0046 Not much there
0047
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
A K TIEN SOCIETY
Landars
– FEB 4, 1952 mundi
To the
Reparation Chamber in the District Court of Munich I
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Munich Palace of Justice
Day
January 31, 1952
Your reference your message from
Our reference subject:
KS-Wo / F JRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei file number: I WK V 69/51 and 68/51
In the above-mentioned matter, the submission of the application body of January 22nd, 1952, compels us to conduct extensive investigations. As this will take a long time, we ask you to cancel the date for the oral hearing, which has meanwhile been set for March 4, 1952, 10:00 a.m., and to not set a new date until our reply has been received. In addition, our syndic, Dr. von Rintelen, who is working on the matter, is unfortunately urgently forced to travel on March 4th, 1952.
Sincerely! Kr a u s / s – M a f f g i
Public limited company Wu Tam h ppa Monem
discontinued. kunne treenine will be determined upon receipt by at least Schrisscherhus announced by U. Geguein. as A. Guguwin, this christchulz is also given (putted until 20.3.1
นม สิน ระ ห ag –
nit. Wmny rerama-Mapper m. To the rest through the Gees
m Liber with Nainas Monum
อา ร ยา
to submit. Important separation calendar
i
และ
wu
lu
W.V. m.
k.20.3.52
Senatsprüsi dan
SV 1 11.51
20,000 beers
4.2.52
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the Supervisory Board
0048-0053 Not much
0054
IRBO • /. Krauss Maffei
Date 4.3.52 Post delivery certificate (unloading) for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
the city council of the state capital
Munich – Unit 10 –
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr.
JR I WKV 68-69 / 50
……..
Mü n …….. e …. n high-rise, Blumenstr.
Number of sheets d. A .:
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal clerk at ….. 144 .. here today = between ……….. and …….. o’clock …. ……. noon – (time only on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual || (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including trading companies, etc.) 1. To the – recipient – company owner
the – head of legal representative – recipient of representation (first and last name)
authorized co-owner or head
even in – the apartment – the business premises || in person in the apartment in the business premises, etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
ETC.
because in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person found – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner was not present,
there the ye employed by the recipient
t u
hand over
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over. since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
as there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – Norsteher – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
-, handed over, b) the adults living in the family
to hand over.
in the local apartment
… not found myself, there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
-, to hand over. adults serving in the family …………….
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and last names)
or landlord.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even in the apartment did not find, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de … in the same house living – landlord .. – landlord, – namely de .
in the apartment .. did not find delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not feasible, the landlord living in the same house – landlord … – landlord. …, dreadful de
//
de
was ready to accept.
I de
was ready to accept.
(Only occurs in cases 1,
2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered. i st, the ….
1954 thrall
(Continued overleaf)
30,000 5.51 F. B.
0055
Postal delivery certificate JEN
completed back
Munich 35 Palace of Justice on Karlsplatz
Office of the Regional Court of Munich
to the
In my capacity as a postal worker, I have the letter referred to above to … here today = between ……….. o’clock and … o’clock ………. noon (time only on request), form for delivery to individuals, | (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
|| rations, associations (including trading companies, etc.) Strikethrough the notice of service on the || (Only valid if the notice of delivery is crossed out on the previous page).
on the previous page).
laying
because I have the – recipient + company owner there is no special business space (business premises) in front of (first and last name)
is acting and I also the – head – legal ver
treter – co-owner authorized to represent – ….. not even found in the apartment and in the apartment the delivery was not sent to a family member
did not find, and the delivery neither to a hearing adult housemate nor to ei
Adult housemates belonging to the family still to an adult person serving in the family
| an adult serving in the family could still be carried out to the landlord or landlord,
the landlord or landlord was executable at the registry of the local court
to the registry of the local court. laid down, –
deposited at the post office
deposited at the post office at …,
resigned to the community leader to …
deposited with the community leader u ..,
laid down, b. d. Police chief too laid down. || to the chief of police
– laid down. A written notice of the resignation || A written notification of the deposit at the address of the recipient
Address of the recipient – has been delivered in the usual way for normal letters has been handed in in the usual way for normal letters –
has been given, since the delivery is in the same way as for ordinary letters, since the delivery in the usual way for ordinary letters was not feasible. –
was not feasible, was attached to the door of the recipient’s apartment – was fixed – fixed – to the door of the recipient’s apartment, someone is in the neighborhood, a person living in the vicinity of the recipient is to be passed on to be passed on to the recipient handed over to the recipient.
been.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
………, the
19 ……
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 22
0056
Tax office Munich-Land Candgeridt
7.2.1952 30 Subject VII
Munich, current issue 42 III 203 B
-EFER. 1952
Herzogspitalstrasse 18
Telephone number 22841 – 43 il ünchen I
Postal check account no. 1718 Munich Re: properties owned by Irania
mempel der Gde. Mü-Untermenzing, PlNr. 688, 694, 604 and 679 Your letter of January 29, 1952 IR I WKV 68-69 / 51
In an air raid on December 17, 1944, all files of the assessment office were destroyed. Unfortunately, your request for the files to be sent cannot be granted. The above-mentioned plots with a total area of 25,560 square meters were rated with 0.90 DN each “on”. The standard value for this is accordingly 23,000 M.
On behalf of: signed Neudecker
ATEN
(Certified:
EN.07
AROUND
To the office of the Munich Regional Court I Restitution Chamber, office 126
employees
INZAM
COMMON. ENTRY POINTS
-8th. FEB. 1932)
W 2105 ….. Nachaw …. Entry officer ……
Wiv. in my opinion
. 21.3.52
in White 11.22
0057
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / IV. TELEPHONE 445 22-44531
district Court
! 8 MAR. 1952 Mint
To the Reparation Chamber at District Court I.
Munich, March 7, 1952 Ga ./Sa. AZ. IMM – 780
I / M – 798
Munich
Submission of the pleading to application – Stadter – Gear sent on …….
In terms of JRSO (model and
Neuburger)
Krauss Maffei A.G.
Act 2. I WK V 68 and 69/51
On February 7th, the Chairman of the Chamber canceled the deadline set for March 4, 1952, on the grounds that a new deadline should be set after receipt of a written statement announced by the Respondent.
This brief is up to today
te, i.e. after a month, has not been received by us.
Since in our brief of
January 22nd essentially just did
actual explanations are included
It should not be so difficult for the respondent to take these mainly from the land register
to comment on these statements.
Youuuuh Walter G a 1 e w s k i
Appendix: 2 copies.
0058
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
district Court
March 20. 1952
ng chamber
Dogs i
To the Reparation Chamber at the Munich Regional Court, Munich Palace of Justice, Abschilik der Schririsatzes
on application – place scher abskot am wageningen
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Your sign
Day
Your message from
Our sign
KS-Dr.Wo / lu March 17, 1952 JRSO (Neuburger and Götz against Krauss-Maffei A.G.) Akt. I WKV 68/51.
Reference:
In the matter described above, we respond to the applicant’s submission of January 22nd, 1952, as follows:
Nalfom, gan
Shrbach
First of all, we deny that Ms. Regina Götz and her children – co-vendors of the plots No. 604, 688, 694 – are of Jewish descent and are therefore affected within the meaning of Article 1 REG. So far, at the oral hearing before the reparation authority on 7 June 1951, the applicant has only been able to prove that Mr. Neuburger was of the Israelite religion. So far, she has not provided evidence that the Götz family was also of Jewish descent. It is therefore not authorized to assert a claim for reimbursement for the Götz property shares.
2.
The facts presented by us very well justify the objection from Article 4, paragraph la. The applicant is right in claiming that the fact that a reasonable purchase price has been paid for free is not enough to prove it
-2
SV1 7.51
20,000 beer bottles
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
0059
It is sufficient that the sale transaction would have come about in its essential components even without the rule of National Socialism. This is determined by Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Restitution Act. However, the same provision forces the reverse conclusion that the fact that the payment of a reasonable price can very well constitute the aforementioned evidence if it is related to other facts and these also point in the direction that the business came about without the rule of National Socialism were. But this is the case here.
It is undisputed that all the properties that belonged to the complex we acquired in the Allach-Untermenzing district were sold by Jews and non-Jews on the same terms, at the same time and at the same price. The applicant misrepresents these facts. Your statements give the impression that we had bought from some non-Jewish and some Jewish landowners at the time; The Jews only sold us because they were under the pressure of National Socialism, the other sellers because they were forced to do so for other special reasons. The landowners, who had no particular reasons, could and would have refused without further ado.
In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite: Almost all the landowners who were approached agreed to the sale after a long, sometimes shorter deliberation. Out of a total of 25 people asked, only the 5 named by the applicant refused. Of the 20 owners who sold to us, there are only two for whom reimbursement claims are being made today, namely Neuburger and Model. None of the property owners had any particular reason to sell. The reason for the sale was simple and understandable for everyone, the prospect of doing a deal and getting cash in hand. In any case, this is what they have expressed to the intermediaries who work for us. There were special reasons against it
0060
The landowners who did not sell, namely, they either wanted to build themselves on the site we wanted and have also built in the meantime, such as Wallner and Statzner named by the applicant, or they were in principle opposed to any property sale from the start, such as . B. Trinkl, who never before or later and also today does not want to give anything from his property, regardless of the conditions. To prove this factual presentation, we name
Mr. Alois se y bold
Munich Schleissheimerstr. 240
as a witness. At the time, Mr. Seybold, as an employee of the real estate brokerage company, which acted as an agent in the real estate business, conducted the essential discussions with interested parties.
For this reason, the applicant fails to refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950:
On the one hand, we believe that our presentation of the facts can provide the evidence required there that the non-Jewish property sellers had no particular reasons for the sale; on the other hand, we consider the passage quoted by the applicant from the reasons for the judgment to be by no means a generally binding statement, but rather a conclusion that is only understandable and plausible from the situation at which a decision was made at the time. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had to rule on a case in which all property sellers – including one person affected – were under pressure to sell that came from the authorities. These were plots of land that were intended as a settlement area as part of state planning and were to be built on according to official guidelines. In this case the landowners had no choice but to sell to the building prospect if they did not want to run the risk of losing their land
0061
To lose expropriation or to no longer be able to use it later at all. In any case, this fact prompted the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt to state that the sale transaction, even if those affected and those who were not affected had sold at the same time and under the same conditions, could only be regarded as having come about without the rule of National Socialism if it was proven that the unaffected landowners had no particular reasons to sell. A generalization of this formulation does not seem to be appropriate for the reasons given.
The applicant claims, in order to maintain the presumption of withdrawal, that our agents at the time made false claims against property owners during the purchase negotiations against their better knowledge. We firmly deny this. We deny that people who acted on our behalf gave incorrect information to Mr. Wallner and Mr. Hackl and thereby wanted to force them to sell. The already known witness, Mr. Seibold, will be able to confirm that no such information was given in any case.
In summary, we state: 1.) We bought from Jews and Gentiles alike
Conditions, at the same price and at the same time.
2.)
All sellers received a reasonable purchase price. They received it freely in cash.
3.)
No pressure, coercion or other unfair business methods were used in the sales negotiations.
4.)
All landowners who sold, alienated of their own free will, olane special occasion. Special reasons gave the owners who did not sell an occasion.
-5
0062
5 –
We believe that these facts require the conclusion that the sales transaction with Neuburger would have come about without the rule of National Socialism and therefore request the rejection of the reimbursement claim.
K
Sincerely !. a uss – M a f is i Aktiengesellschaft
Rear
0063
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
ano court! . 20 MAR. 1952
To the
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Di ünchen Justizpalast Copy of the pleading
to application – submitter: opponent eigesanct to
u raanaa your reference your message from
Our sign
KS-Wo / lu subject:
Day
March 17, 1952
JRSO (Model versus Krauss-Maffei A.G.) Akt.Zeich. I WKV 69/51).
In the above-mentioned matter, we reply the following to the applicant’s submission of January 22, 1952:
The applicant is asserting a claim for reimbursement because, in her opinion, Mr. Siegmund Model was under the pressure of National Socialism when he sold his land and the sale would not have taken place without the rule of National Socialism. Dr Arthur Model, the son and heir of Mr Sigmund Model, stated in front of witnesses on May 3, 1951 that he considered the matter with this transaction to have been properly dealt with and that he did not want to have anything to do with the clearing house. Proof: Mr. Alois Se y bold
Munich, Schleissheimerstraße 240 as a witness. In our opinion, this declaration must be countered by the applicant, if a person concerned or his heirs see a sale of assets as a proper, legitimate business act, the successor organization, which after all has to represent its interests, can hardly claim the opposite. We refer in this context
-2
SV 1 11.51
20,000 beer bottles
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
0064
on the decisions of the WK Kassel from June 20, 1950, quoted in the NJW supplement to the reparation jurisprudence. 1950 page 335 and the OLG Frankfurt dated November 16, 1950 cited in NJW supplement 1951 page 99.
2.
The facts presented by us very justify
REG probably the objection from Article 4, paragraph la. / The applicant is right when it asserts that the fact of the payment of a reasonable purchase price at free disposal alone is not sufficient to prove that the sale transaction in its essential components even without the National Socialism would have come about. This is determined by Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Restitution Act. However, the same rule forces the converse conclusion that the fact of the payment of a reasonable price can very well constitute the aforementioned evidence if it is related to other facts and these also point in the direction that the business could be carried out without the rule of the National Socialism would have come about. But this is the case here.
It is undisputed that all the properties that belonged to the complex we acquired in the Allach-Untermenzing district were sold by Jews and non-Jews on the same terms, at the same time and at the same price. The applicant misrepresents these facts. Your statements give the impression that we had bought from some non-Jewish and some Jewish landowners at the time; The Jews only sold us because they were under the pressure of National Socialism, the other sellers because they were forced to do so for other special reasons. The landowners, who would not have had any particular grind, could and would have refused without further ado. In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite: Almost all the landowners approached, after a long, sometimes shorter deliberation, declared themselves with the Ver
ー 3
0065
– 3 –
I agree to purchase. Out of a total of 25 people asked, only the five named by the applicant refused. Of the 20 owners who sold to us, there are only two for whom reimbursement claims are being made today, namely Model and Neuburger. None of the property owners had any particular reason to sell. The reason for the sale was simple and understandable for everyone, the prospect of doing a deal and getting cash in hand. In any case, this is what they have expressed to the intermediaries who work for us. The landowners who did not sell were for special reasons. They either wanted to build themselves on the site we wanted and have now also built, such as Wallner and Statzner named by the applicant, B. Trinkl, who never before or later and also today does not want to give anything from his property, regardless of the conditions.
To prove this factual account, we name Mr. Alois Seybold, Munich, as already mentioned, as a witness. At the time, Mr. Seybold, as an employee of the real estate brokerage company, which acted as an agent in the real estate business, conducted the essential discussions with interested parties.
For this reason, the applicant fails to refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950:
On the one hand, we believe that our presentation of the facts can provide the evidence required there that the non-Jewish property sellers had no particular reasons for the sale; on the other hand, we consider the passage quoted by the applicant from the reasons for the judgment to be by no means a generally binding statement, but rather a conclusion that is only understandable and plausible from the situation at which a decision was made at the time. The OLG Frankfurt had over one case
–
4th
0066
– 3 –
in which all property sellers – including one person affected – were under pressure to sell that came from the authorities. These were plots of land that were intended as a settlement area as part of state planning and were to be built on according to official guidelines. In this case, the landowners had no choice but to sell to those interested in building if they did not want to run the risk of losing their land through expropriation or later no longer being able to use it at all. In any case, this fact has prompted the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt to state that the sale transaction, even if those affected and those not affected had sold at the same time and under the same conditions, can only be regarded as having come about without the rule of National Socialism if it is proven that that the unaffected landowners had no particular reasons to sell. A generalization of this formulation does not seem to be appropriate for the reasons given.
The applicant claims, in order to maintain the presumption of withdrawal, that our agents at the time made false claims against property owners during the purchase negotiations against their better knowledge. We firmly deny this. We denied that people who acted on our behalf had given incorrect information to Mr. Wallner and Mr. Hackl and thereby wanted to force them to sell. The already known witness, Mr. Seybold, will be able to confirm that no such information was given in any case. We emphatically deny that people who acted on our behalf asked Mr. Model’s land tenants not to pay any more rent to Model. The people at the real estate brokerage company who conducted the purchase negotiations for us only had to do with the property owners, who ultimately had to decide on the sale alone.
-5
0067
-5
In summary we state: 1.) The son and heir of Mr. Siegmund Model, Dr. A. Model,
has declared his father’s real estate transactions, which are the subject of this proceeding, to be properly settled, the applicant must accept his declaration against him.
2.) We bought from Model on the same terms, on the same
Price and at the same time as from all other sellers.
3.) All sellers received a reasonable purchase price.
They received it freely in cash.
4.) During the sales negotiations there was neither pressure nor compulsion,
or other unfair business practices.
5.) All landowners who sold, sold out
Free items without a special reason. Special reasons gave cause for the owners who did not sell.
We believe that these facts urgently require the conclusion that the sales transaction with Model would have come about without the rule of National Socialism and therefore request that the claim for reimbursement be rejected.
Sincerely! Kr a u ss – M a f fe i n Aktiengesellschaft
ppa
etalon
0068
File number: I wk 68769 / ?.
Onze already
Mitchen der om … ‘
künchen, the ………. 1951
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I.
Ini n sb @ 8 timmun
……. the …….. wed …….. 1951 in front. 10 … a.m., meeting room 257 / III.
Tongues III. File recovery: ..
Ahh. Accelerated delivery of 3 letters. Krauss-Massei v. 17.3.02 delivery
20.4.52 Resubmission for ….
.. @.
The Chairman:
0069 – 0081 Forms or hand written text
0082
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V TELEPHONE 445 22 – 44531
To the
district Court
17 APR. 1952 Chamber of Commerce Munich I
Munich, April 16, 1952 Dr. H / Gr.
Reparation Chamber at Regional Court I,
Az,: I / M 780
IMM 798
Munich,
Palace of Justice,
Part of the pleading in Antras – See Gachar Kona posted on
ANASPORA
Corte
In terms of: JR I WK V 68/51
JRSO
KRAUSS – MAFFEI A.G.
Let us comply with the decision of the Chamber
of 7.4.1952, in which we received the charge
competent address of the witness Georg
H a e k i announce as follows:
Georg Hackl, Munich.Allach,
Manzostrasse 65.
We allow ourselves that at the same time
polite request to be made, too
the other witness to the appointment of
7.5.1952 wanting to load, namely Mr.
I am from further zenzen
To be found at the date of 3. 7.5051! shi malsuprafarthen G. Joukl in
Wallner Erl, see p. 42 backs. I, M. w. G. In
Otto Wallner, Munich.Allach,
Manzostrasse 47.
9/21/57
This witness, too, turned out to be at the time
refused to give his property to the Krauss.
Maffei A.G. to sell
rallyn
Attachment: 2 copies.
Dr. E. Ndzger Legal Director JRSO Munich
0083
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAUR STRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 445 22 – 44531
To the Reparation Chamber at District Court I.
Munich, April 4, 1952 Ga./Sd. AZ. I / M – 798
Munich Palace of Justice
District Court 1-5. APR. 1952
In terms of JRSO (Neuburger)
Krauss-Maffei A.G.
Copy of the pleading to Request – Sater – Geonar
absice am.5 Freun Maffei & Sladi Chircher Repro
Act 2. I WKV 68/51
Let us take the liberty of commenting on item I of the clarification resolution of March 21st that according to Par. 12 FGG
the reparation chamber has to determine on its own initiative whether the previous owners were Jews.
gesit z. In conclusion, the claims that must already be able to wet Amelch danlar Inschrind, how they knew him!
ایران و
onlleli
We checked the card index of the residents’ registration office and found the following:
Ms. Regina Goetz nee Heymann, as well as her children Nathan, Otto, Klara, Thekla Goetz, all residing in Munich, Rumfordstr. 6, were Jews and as such in the file of Ein
registration office noted.
-2
0084 – 0086 Forms
0087
City Councilor of the City of Lünchen, Division 10 – Legal Department
21 APR 1952
Address: Munich City Council, Section 10 – RA
Long-distance call office hours, high-rise building, Blumenstr. 28 b
4566/215ean Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri
Room number. 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. To the
512 / V Chamber of reparations Postal check account of the city main office: at the district court of Mü.I Munich, No. 115
Bank and savings bank accounts in Munich 35
City main office:
State Central Bank of Bavaria No. 6/165 Palace of Justice.
Bayerische Staatsbank Nr. 40 115 Bayerische Gemeindebank Nr. 1115 Städt, Sparkasse Nr. 3000 Kreissparkasse Nr. 54 500 Bayer. Hypoth. And Wechsel-Bank No. 400 248 Bayerische Vereinsbank No. 207 620 Bayerische Creditbank No. 31 232 Bayerische Bank for Trade and Industry No. 5894 Bankhaus Merck, Finck & Co., No. 2119 Bankhaus Seiler & Co. , No. 18518
Bank for economics ù. Arb. A.-G. No. 33333 Your reference Your message from Our reference
Munich KV JR 60
21.3. Subject: IRSO /. Krauss-Maffei for refund.
In view of the fact that the rights of the city in the above-mentioned procedure already exist in accordance with Art. 37, Paragraph 1, last clause REG, we refrain from starting the … May 7, 1952. Torm. 10.30 to send a representative. We ask, however, to send us a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
.Co., No. 18518 4119
Bank f, econom
I wkthres Kicke-6977592 Aachezsht 20152. unkere 40ch A. Salinchen 4.52.
40
Dr. Sauter municipal senior legal councilor
0088
Copy of the pleadings to the request – StellesGeguony sent on 2452
KRAUSS – MAFFEIOAKTIENGESELLSCHAFT · MUNICH – ALLACH n. An hadt Munich
To the
District Court April 23, 1952 Nilungen
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I
Munich
Justice building
April 19, 1952 KS-Wo / F
Subject: IRSO ./. Krauss Maffei
Act 2ch .: JR I WKV 68/51.
In the matter described above, we comment below on the requirements of the clarification decision of March 21, 1952: Regarding point 2 of the decision: The defendant has so far become aware of the following addresses of sellers of the neighboring properties:
sold: Josef Ziegler, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 19 (Pl.Nr. 620) Franz Grassl, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 7 (P1.Nr. 689, 678) Mrs. Amalie Storzum (Wwe des Friedrich Storzum) Munich, Dom Pedro Platz 6
(P1.Nr. 673) Franz Alz, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 34 (Pl.Nr. 605) Josef Forstner, Mü.-Allach, Vesaliusstr. 24 (Pl.Nr. 677) Josef Forstner, Mü.-Untermenzing, Kirchenstr. 19 (Pl.Nr. 608, 693) Therese Bugger, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 36 (P1.Nr. 615, 627) Karl Schwägeri , Mü.-Untermenzing, Allacherstr. 10 (P1.Nr. 606) Hans Frey, Munich, Marsstrasse 5 / IV
(P1 No. 670) Jakob Os termair, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. (Pl.No. 612, 613)
14 Mathias Granti, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 54 (P1.Nr. 614, 676)
(Mine
The addresses of the other property sellers have not yet become known to the defendant, despite their efforts. If she is still able to determine addresses, she will inform the court immediately. The defendant will submit statements by the seller about the reasons that prompted them to sell to the court in a few days.
Kr a us s – Ma f I e i
Aktiengesellschaft 2 copies are attached
ppa malam
24,492
mell
TELEPHONE: 81321 – TELEPHONE: MUNCHEN F 72 TELEPHONE 063/865. TELEGRAMS: KRAUSSMAFFEI MUNCHENALLACH
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W. O. Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel 5000 Bierl
SV 6 10.50
0089
Former numbers and file numbers: I 520 288 -a 56848-IR 22
I 520 289 -a 56849-IR 23 File number of the Reparation Chamber: IR I WKV 68/51
IR I WKV 69/51 Date
MIN. Protocol
recorded to in public session
the reparation chamber at the district court of Munich I
Munich, May 7, 195
Currently: District Court Judge Dr. Tittiger
as chairman, district court advisor Dr. Goerkev Ger. Assessor Runge
as associate judge, court clerk Hinterholzer
as deputy documentary official.
Roo, Munich Enforceable copy
groot sy romu – Yumy
Ini Ludhe Arte
ZS61 ans 6 lamb to the profession
In matters
aan
Jewish Restitution Successor Organization
IRSO -, New York, Munich Regional Office, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8 / IV Munich Bee
23
21
é o t
e
‘- against
c
OBAT
Krauss – M affei A.-G., Munich-Ablach,
Kraus Maffeistr. 2 Posep Toe –
IES
for reimbursement appear after calling the matter: 1.) For the applicant: Dir.Dr. Mezger, general leg. 2.) For the respondent: Dr. Helmut Wolf under handover
a power of attorney. The summoned witnesses Aloys Seybold, Georg Hackl, and Otto Wallner also appear. De The witnesses are exhorted to state the truth and instructed about the consequences of a false affidavit or unofficial testimony. The witnesses are first released from the meeting room.
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0090
It is established: In the case IR I WKV 68/51, the registration was made in the correct form and in due time on November 25, 1948, delivered to the respondent on March 29, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated April 16, 1952, received by WB I on April 19, 1951. With the decision of WB I of April 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the Reparation Chamber. In case IR I WKV 69/51, the application was submitted in due form and in due time on November 25, 1948, and served on the respondent on July 26, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated July 27, 1951, received by WB I on July 30, 1951. With the decision of WB I of November 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the reparation chamber. It is also established that the court linked the two things with an order of January 28, 1952.
ESTS
After a short factual discussion, the following comes between the parties involved
conditional comparison
conditions:
I.
The respondent pays to settle the applicant’s compensation claims from the registrations of November 25, 1948 regarding the property registered in the land registry of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 38 B1.1609 page 526, plan nos. 688,694 and 604, and regarding the property , registered in the land register of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 42 B1.1716 Page 281-Plan-No.679,680,683, 686,690,691,692,610,611, the amount of
cargo 20,000 DM (roughly twenty thousand German marks)
8 days after this settlement becomes final, in II. The amount of 20,000 DM is to be paid on
the settlement account of the IRSO No. 11874 at the
Bavarian Discount Bank Munich, Maximiliansplatz. III. The parties involved agree that the
Blocking note in the land register with regard to the properties, listed under Section I, is deleted.
0091
It is established: In the case IR I WKV 68/51, the registration was made in the correct form and in due time on November 25, 1948, delivered to the respondent on March 29, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated April 16, 1952, received by WB I on April 19, 1951. With the decision of WB I of April 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the Reparation Chamber. In case IR I WKV 69/51, the application was submitted in due form and in due time on November 25, 1948, and served on the respondent on July 26, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated July 27, 1951, received by WB I on July 30, 1951. With the decision of WB I of November 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the reparation chamber. It is also established that the court linked the two things with an order of January 28, 1952.
ESTS
After a short factual discussion, the following comes between the parties involved
conditional comparison
conditions:
I.
The respondent pays to settle the applicant’s compensation claims from the registrations of November 25, 1948 regarding the property registered in the land registry of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 38 B1.1609 page 526, plan nos. 688,694 and 604, and regarding the property , registered in the land register of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 42 B1.1716 Page 281-Plan-No.679,680,683, 686,690,691,692,610,611, the amount of
cargo 20,000 DM (roughly twenty thousand German marks)
8 days after this settlement becomes final, in II. The amount of 20,000 DM is to be paid on
the settlement account of the IRSO No. 11874 at the
Bavarian Discount Bank Munich, Maximiliansplatz. III. The parties involved agree that the
Blocking note in the land register with regard to the properties, listed under Section I, is deleted.
0092
canceled. Each of the parties involved bears the court costs
the half. V. The IRSO declares to be the beneficiary and
undertakes to indemnify the respondent from any claims by third parties due to the above-mentioned objects in the amount of the settlement amount received, provided that she is immediately informed of such claims and the respondent follows the instructions in defending against such claims
according to the IRSO. VI. Thus all mutual claims are after
Mil.Reg.Ges. compensated. VII. Withdrawal period for both parts until May 30, 1952.
CARICHI
It is explained to the called witnesses that a conditional settlement has been reached and that they do not need to be questioned as witnesses at the moment.
After a secret consultation of the Chamber, the following is issued
Decision B:
If the settlement is revoked, a new date will be officially determined.
The Chairman:
The secretary:
Mukalwer.
Dr Me zger and Dr Wolf for Kraus-Maffei each order a copy of the protocol.
order 1/550 sulun
turn
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 22
00104
KRAUSS MAFFEIS
MAFFE Lonxoerid
June 9, 1952
STOCK COMPANY
MUNICH – ALLACH
To the
Reparation Chamber at the Regional Court of Munich I Munich
Telephone 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank München Landeszentralbank München 6/851 Postscheckkonto München 731
Your sign
Your message from
Day
Our mark KS-Wo / F
5.6.1952
Reference:
JRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei due to reimbursement of file numbers JR I WKV 68/51 and 69/51
In this matter, the JRSO informed us by letter dated May 30, 1952 that it finally agreed with the settlement concluded on May 7, 1952, in which a severance payment from our side in the amount of DM 20,000 .– was agreed. We therefore ask that you issue a copy of the settlement, which is provided with a legal notice.
Sincerely! Kr a uss – M af f e i
Corporation
и аррала,
SVI 20000 11.51 beer
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
Other set of documents: WB_I_JR_69_
0023
AL
II.
Mr. Benno Israel NEUBURGER, Miss Kla erchen, Sara GOETZZ, Miss Thekla Sara GOETZ, Mr. Nathan GOETZ and Mr. Otto Israel GOETZ sell the property designated under I, including legal accessories
at
the married couple Herm Josef and Mrs. Katharina S IX, as co-owners, each with an unseparated half. The parties involved are on the transfer of ownership
Some
and approve and apply for this change of law to be entered in the land register.
III. The price are
RM 2,500 .– – two thousand five hundred Reichsmarks – It is due for payment as soon as the approval of the government priest has been received by the notary. Until then, the purchase price is 4.1 / 2% – four and a half percent – annual interest. From the purchase price are
RM 1,250 .– – one thousand two hundred and fifty Reichsmarks – plus the interest on its amount to be transferred to the joint account of Otto Nathan, Thekla and Kla.erchen GGOETZ at the Sailer & Co. in Munich, and
RM 1,250 .– – one thousand two hundred and fifty Reichsmarks – plus the interest on this amount on the account of Mr. Benno Neuburger at Dresdner Bank, Ritter von Epp-Platz branch, account no. 65331
VII.
The entire costs of the establishment and the execution of the present Ur
0024
13
customer, including real estate transfer tax plus surcharge and certificate tax, are borne by the buyer alone.
The parties involved apply for the present document to be issued to: a) the married couple Josef and Katharina SIX jointly a copy b) the land registry and the government president one each
certified copy, c) the tax office, Mr. Benno Neuburger and the involved Goetz
together one unauthorized copy.
Any capital gains tax is to be borne by the buyer.
VIII. With regard to the payment obligations assumed, the buyers submit to immediate foreclosure from this deed in their entire property in such a way that the foreclosure against the respective owner of the property should be permitted.
As a husband, Mr. Josef Six grants the marital approval to the declarations of his wife Katharine Six and tolerates the immediate foreclosure on the property brought in by his wife,
of residential areas. 2) on the capital gains tax provisions. 3) on the real liability of the kafufgrundstueck for any
Arrears on Ilypothekenzinsen and public charges, 4) on the veradnung over the employment of the Jewish property, 5) on the fact that the regulations over the prohibition of price
increases also relate to land, 6) to the notarization obligation of all contractual agreements and 7) that the property is only transferred to the buyer with the entry in the land register, that this entry only after all costs have been paid, the receipt of the tax clearance certificate and approval of the President of the Government. At the request of the representative of the gallery owner, the buyers assure that they have the provisional imperial civil rights in accordance with the legal regulations, further that they do not have any agreements or special agreements in any form with Jews or in favor of the property acquired with this contract, its exploitation or use have met by Jews and will not meet them. The buyers are aware that a false insurance or non-compliance can have consequences in the future, which may lead to the expropriation of the property with the strictest punishment. The buyers undertake, when taking over the property, neither to endanger nor to destroy Aryan existences located on the property, read out by the notary’s representative, approved by the parties involved and personally signed.
Benno Israel Neuburger little girl Sara Goetz Thekla Sara Goetz Nathan Goetz
0025
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
U.S. ARMY APO 407-A / Muehlbaurstr. 8 / IV.
Tedergutmachungsbc105.1 in.com
Munich, November 20th, 50 Fingo 2 NOV. 1950
No.
AZ: IM – 799 (Please specify) To the reparations committee – Upper Bavaria –
JR 69 Munich Arcisstr. 11 / II.
Dr M / BB 7471
HT
In the case of JR 69 regarding the property in Untermenzing, Pl.No.:331, formerly NEUBURGER Goetz, now: SIX Josef and Katharina, the objection period expired on 10.10.50 without any objection from the respondents. The contradiction of those involved, City of Munich, does not work in favor of the person liable for reimbursement, but only has the effect that the question of the load limit is disputed. Otherwise, in the event of a decision according to Article 62, Paragraph 1, we do not value the cancellation of the rights of the City of Munich in Section II and III of the Land Register. We therefore request that a decision in accordance with Art. 62, Paragraph 1, be issued in this sense:
Mums
Dr. E. Me tlg er Director, JRS O Munich.
0026
Again
bez 05b .: 16 “, JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Eriang. – 1st WRZ. 1951 APO 407-A
U.S. ARMY Mue hlbaurstr. 8, IV
WVR1691
Munich, February 12, 1951. Dr. Ed / Ro AZ: I / M 799
IR Gg.
To the reparations office I – Upper Bavaria – Muenchen 2 Arcisstr, 117 II
Subject: Refund JRSO (Neuburger, Goetz).). Six Josef
–
In the above matter you have agreed to our application in accordance with Art. 62 of the MRG. 59 wanting to give in as soon as possible. We ask for a resolution.
JRSO MWICH ALEGJOKALL OFFICE Dr. E. Mezger, director,
0027
CITY COUNCIL OF THE STATE CAPITAL MUNICH Unit 10 – Legal Department
Address: Munich City Council, Section 10 – RA
Long distance call
Office hours high-rise, Blumenstrasse 28 b
4566 / … 215
Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri
Room no. 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. To the
-512) Reparation Authority I.
Postal checking account of the Stadthauptkasse: Munich No. 115
Bank and savings bank accounts of Upper Bavaria
City main office:
State Central Bank of Bavaria No. 6/165 Reparations Bayerische Staatsbank No. 40115
Bayerische Gemeindebank Nr. 1115 Mü n ch balode Obb. Munich Bädt. Sparkasse No. 3000 *
Kreissparkasse No. 54 500 Arcisstras fiestas: – JUNE 8, 1951
Bayer. Hypoth. And exchange bank No. 400 248 Bayerische Vereinsbank No. 207 620 Sayerische Creditbank No. 31 232
Sayerische Bank for trade and industry del
No. 5894 Hankhaus Merck, Finck & Co., No. 2119 Sankhaus Seiler & Co., No. 18 518 Bank f. Wirtsch. U. Arb. A.-G. No. 33 333
Your sign your message from
Our signs
Munich, Az, JR Ia 69
R 347 / RA.Sa. 4.6.51. REFERENCE:
IRSO for Benno Neuburger and others /. Josef and Katharina si X, Mü.-Allach for reimbursement of Flst.Nr. 331 Gem. Untermenzing.
With reference to our objection dated 9/8/50, we, as the mortgagee, ask for notification of the status of the proceedings.
Dr. Heinz Sauter municipal senior legal councilor
0028
June 11, 1951
JR Ia 69
MRG 59 – JRSO as follow-up org. Article 10.11 MRG 59 for Benno Neuburger
Klara Götz and others o). Six Josef and Katharina there. Inquiry from June 4, 1951 Zch.R 347 / RA Sa.
The specified procedure has not yet been completed. The respondents have not yet commented on the reimbursement claim.
I.V.
(Ma ir)
To the City Council of the City of Munich – Ref.lo – Legal Dept. Munich, high-rise
gas hr am
June 11, 1951 from l. ani ………
0029
Compensation authority Olb .: Munich
howed! Basement. 1951 To the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria
August 21, 1951. Munich Arcisstr. 1! 7II
AL
Subject: JR 69; JRSO
/
Josef and Katharina Six Mlinchen-Allach, Lippertstr. 11
I raise a claim against the reimbursement notification sent to me and my wife by the JRSO
Contradiction
I paid the purchase price for the property in cash to the account indicated to me at the time. The sellers were able to fully dispose of the purchase price. The property was offered to me for sale by Mr. Neuburger and the Götz siblings. Why do I only lodge an objection today, because I was of the opinion – I understand nothing at all about legal matters – that the property will be taken from me again. that I have to publish it again and therefore a contradiction – as someone told me – was pointless.
I ask the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria to set a negotiation date for a possible settlement of the matter. I and my wife would be happy to keep the property and, in an accommodating manner, make an additional payment, but without recognizing a legal obligation, because the property was purchased without compulsion and because, as I mentioned above, the sellers were able to fully dispose of the purchase price.
Sincerely
di limim communicated to Formlos
To sowe wg si 22 Aug 1951 W.9.51 official deed of office A,
the reimbursement authority Oberhaveri
Sise Zooeps
22.8.
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0030
ReparationUCCESSOR ORGANIZAT ‘Authority Obb., Munich
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATIB
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 4416 22 – 44531
Encounter. 3rd SEP. 1951
DATOR
To the reparation authority I-Upper Bavaria
Mayenchen, August 31, 1951 Dr.H./Str. Ref. I / M – 799
Munich Arcisstr. 11
Re: JR 69, (Neuburger, Goetz) IRSO
Six
Josef and Katharina
Refund.
In the above matter is a notice of opposition
of the opponent within the prescribed period
not received. We therefore wrote to you in letter v. November 20 and 28 1950, as well as with letter v. 12.2.51 asked for a resolution in accordance with Article 62 MRG 59.
Our request has not yet been granted
ben, however, we became a contradiction script.
sentence dated v. 21.8.51, now from the WB
represents.
We allow ourselves to state that we do not take note of this contradiction, and on the
the i there
for
.
Resolutions in accordance with Article 62 continue to exist
B.
measure. We now ask for prompt processing.
TRSO, REGIONAL, OFFICE MUNICH I.A. Dr Kurt Hagel Haar
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0031
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 / III
Call number: 20954, 270 AZ. JR. Yes 69
V er for & ung
.
In terms of JRSO as the successor organ. Article 10.11 MRG 59 for Benno Neuburger, Goetz Klara, Thekla, Nathan. And .0tta …
against Ward Josef Six and Katharina Six, Munich-Allach, Lippertstrasse 11
Meeting
determined – ver d. Reparation Authority – {xxOTXXXXGüteausausschussxdoxWB.XXXXorxdxxindividual member)
on … Dienstee …._, the …: November 1951 ..
… 12: 0 … a.m., room ..3.5 / .111
to be loaded are: .1 .. JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr: 8 / IV …..
.?: Josef. $ IzMünchen-Allach, Lippertstr: 11 …… .3. .Katharina .Six, Munich-471ach, Linnertstr.11 .. .4. City Councilor of the City of Munich, Munich,
skyscraper
‘d
OOOOO
6th
0
0
O O OOOOO
3rd
1.)
Zwacks delivery with confirmation of receipt
… 15.10.
1951
manes
W374) For delivery to the post office
Oct 17, 1951
The document Her Wiedergut
Employment Office
d Oberhaver
0032 – 0039. Forms
0040
22nd
The restitution authority makes the following determinations:
Claims for the Jewish persecuted Benno Neuburger, Klärchen Goetz, Nathan Goetz, Otto Goetz,
Thekla Goetz registered.
Comparison: 1.) The JRSO agrees that the respondents
the property plan no. 331, Stgmde Unters, acquired by the persecuted Jews with a contract of sale dated June 23, 1939
menzing remains. 2.) Compensation for all reimbursement claims is due to the
of the aforementioned property, the respondents undertake to pay the JRSO the amount of
2000 DM (mostly / two thousand German marks) namely
1,000 DM by December 31, 1951 at the latest, the remaining 1,000 DM in 20 equal monthly installments of DM 50 each beginning on February 1, 1952 to the JRSO comparison account at Bayerische Diskontobank München, account no. Pay 11874
If the respondents are in arrears for more than 10 days, the entire remaining amount is due for payment. The respondent Josef Six grants his wife his solidarity consent to the declaration of commitment and obliges / himself to tolerate the foreclosure of the property brought in. The respondents are entitled to repay the damaged part amounts early.
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0041
3.) The IRSO declares that it is solely authorized and guarantees that there are no other authorized persons. It undertakes, as a precautionary measure, to exempt the respondent from any claims by third parties due to the specified assets in the amount of the assets received. However, the respondents have to notify the IRSO immediately of such claims.
to pay off.
5.) The parties apply for the procedure to be free of charge. In addition, the representation and other extrajudicial costs against each other are canceled.
6.) This means that all mutual claims according to MRG 59 or according to civil law from the registration of the IRSO of October 9, 1948 and the registration amendment of July 26, 1950
compensated. 7.) The JRSO reserves the right to make the above comparison
Submission of a pleading to the reparations authority I to be revoked by 11/30/1951.
Read out, approved and signed.
Josef Sise Mathic you
for IRSO IH. Hage
Mans
Vrollmer
0042 – 0044 Little text
0045
Redress authority
Munich
the … 5. December. ….. 1951
Release Reg. No. Isa
New address: Ref .: JR. Ia 69
Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 Ser.-No .:
Ruf-No .: 20354, 27666 Release order The restitution procedure Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. (JRSO) New York / USA as the successor organization
Applicant represented by Regional Office, Munich Mühlbaurstrasse 8 / IV against S. i … Josef and Katharina … Munich-Allachgertstr. 1 Respondent represented by is concluded. The settlement took place on … 6 … 1.1.1.951 … by …. Ve 8 1 calibrated
before the reparation authority I Upper Bavaria, Munich
Reference is made to the attached certified copy of the minutes.
Any security measures are to be lifted. Any existing = the trust account is to be paid out to the respondent.
(In the case of a partial settlement, partial waiver or partial decision, the property affected by the settlement or waiver and the related content of the settlement must be precisely specified. The same applies to extensive objects; otherwise, a key word reproduction of the settlement or the decision and a brief statement of the property that is to be released sufficient.)
any / The release is due to … the respondents Josef and Katharina ix
… Munich-Allach … Lippertstrasse 11 ..
to effect
According to the instructions of the military government, reports on the implementation must be reported for reporting purposes.
Branch office of the Bayer. State Office for Property Administration and reparation
in Munich – city
Blumenstrasse 31 2. Andas
Bayer. State Office for Property Administration and reparation Dept. II
Munich
Prinzregentenpl. 16 from I am
(S.)
(Rubber stamp)
COMPLETECTOS Ngos hram
Form WB 11 (released from the UK) 5000 6.51 Manz AG.
0046
Reparation Authority I Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Munich, December 5, 1951 Thierschstr. 17
Tel. 20354, 27666. AZ .: JR Ia 69
Object: plot of land (Hartacker) to 0.8 ha (to be stated in response)
Mlinchen, Moosacherstrasse Betr. : MRG 59; refund procedure here
The reparation authority of Upper Bavaria approves and hereby applies for the deletion of the land register for Untermenzing
Volume 48 / Page 501 Sheet 1907 Section II No. Plan No. 3317 in favor of a registered refund note. A notification of completion is requested. ‘ To the local court
Day Land Registry
When in linchen
written on
expired, on …….
wa
0047
Dept. of land register
The subject and file number must be given for all information
January 23
Munich 35 den
195
Justice building at Prielmayerstraße 5
hogy sörda Obb., 14 Anchon Subject:
imgma. 26 JAN. 1952
Property Hs no.
al
pimated address. J & Ia 69
Land register plan no. 531 / Untermenzing
The reimbursement claim was deleted today due to a cancellation permit dated December 5, 1951 in the land register for Untermenzing Volume 48 sheet 1907 page 501 …
certified non-compulsory applic.
2000 7th 51st, Wu.
0048 – 0050 Little text
0051
1948 –
To the
Josef Frei Real Estate – Mortgages –
House management Munich 2 Karlsplatz, Tel .:
kilinchen, the -25. May
89843 Central Registration Office,
C86600
Bad near 1 m
via the Münch en-Staat branch
IR 69
Notification required according to Act No. 59 of the MEF excitation in connection with AVO No. 2 property plan No. 331 at Moosacherstr. 74-3200-63.
Part A
Ize i Josef 2. Munich 2 3. Karlsplatz 8/1 See point 3
Numbers 5, 6 and 7 are omitted.
feil B
Tello
Not known. 24. RM 2,500.
Not known.
Not known. 27. Not known, 28. Not applicable.
No. 29 with No. 34 is not applicable.
26th
Trustee
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
WB_la_2011_
0002
25th
Clerk: Security measure:. 15. (Number of cases) 16. (Vorwelsungsbeschluss-Att. 59)
(Decision according to application type 42.1) 26. (Opposition) 27. (Receipt of the objection) 28. (Additional information requested from the respondent) 29. (Submission of additional information from the respondent)
(Referral to another WB)
30th
(Quality dates)
31.
{Withdrawal of the application)
32.
22nd
(Comparison)
(Refusals-Art. 62.2)
33.
(Refund or settlement of an amicable settlement)
24
(Resolving decision to the reparation chamber
(First, public announcement)
Done on:
Individual registration: Az: No.
0003
At the OFK Mamhen,
This property has been subject to confiscation under Law No. 59 of the Military Government. In the event that, as a result of the rewriting of the land register or for any other reason, the above description should not be correct, the correction will be made
reserved for description. 4. The right according to Art. 16 of the law is expressly reserved, 5. a) A natural reimbursement is requested; b) In case of reimbursement in nature is not possible or in case of deterioration of the claimed property, the right is exercised
reserve the right to claim compensation, the amount of which will be disclosed in the course of the proceedings; c) All further claims based on the law are hereby asserted. We reserve the right to indicate their numerical height.
If the persons named under 2 are not currently the owner of the position, the claims asserted are directed against the current owner or owners of the position. In any case, the asserted claims for compensation are also directed against all persons currently unknown to us who have owned or owned the property since the confiscation.
We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration has been given to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurately and in accordance with the truth.
For the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization:
633.64
Fun
Date:
(Power of attorney is available from the central registration office)
0004
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
301 Fürther Str. Nuremberg
To the
Central registration office
Reparation Authority:
Friedberg near Bad Nauheim
This registration corresponds to advertisement no.
The Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. New York (address to be used: Nuremberg, Fürther Strasse 301), which is regulated by the Implementing Ordinance No. 3 of June 23rd. 1948 was recognized as a successor organization within the meaning of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Law No. 59 of the Military Government, makes the following registration on the basis of Law No. 59 of the Military Government: 1. Name and last known address of the Jewish persecuted:
Neuburger Horne, rz. kuenchen, Enorrsta: 148, died on September 19, 1942, heirs unknown
German Empire – OFK Huaxchen by Wayr. Startinet. Finances
526
Life Insurance A
.,
M 61.96 Huecksautomatt ‘one at the “L83 然 若 該 參差 等 其 主 参 熱 器 套装, 主要 是 和 经营
This property has been subject to confiscation under Law No. 59 of the Military Government. In the event that the above description should no longer apply due to the rewriting of the land register or for any other reason, the correction
reserved for description. 4. The right according to Art. 16 of the law is expressly reserved. 5. a) A natural reimbursement is required; b) In case of reimbursement in nature is not possible or in case of deterioration of the claimed property, the right is exercised
reserve the right to claim compensation, the amount of which will be disclosed in the course of the proceedings; c) All further claims based on the law are hereby asserted. We reserve the right to indicate their numerical height.
If the persons named under 2 are not currently the owner of the position, the claims asserted are directed against the current owner or owners of the position. In any case, the asserted claims for compensation are also directed against all persons currently unknown to us who have owned or owned the property since the confiscation.
We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration has been given to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurately and in accordance with the truth.
For the Jewish Restitution Suecessor Organization:
Date:
State Archives Munich
(Power of attorney is given by the Central Office)
WB la 2011
0005
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
301 Fürther Str. Nuremberg
To the
Central registration office
Reparation Authority: Rex
Vuerchen
Friedberg near Bad Nauheim
This registration corresponds to advertisement no.
The Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. New York (address to be used: Nuremberg, Fürther Strasse 301), which is regulated by the Implementing Ordinance No. 3 of June 23rd. 1948 was recognized as a successor organization within the meaning of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Law No. 59 of the Military Government, makes the following registration on the basis of Law No. 59 of the Military Government: 1. Name and last known address of the Jewish persecuted:
Neuburgor benne, T. Wuenchen, Knorret: 148, yeates 19.9.48, Xeben unknown
Deutrobes Reiek – OFK Unchen duren Dr. Stestrein.1.1nzen
A.
i steer with life insurance
M.
. Bueno
61.96 Eudokkautokort ‘one with the insurance taken out
This property has been subject to confiscation under Law No. 59 of the Military Government. In the event that the above description should no longer apply due to the rewriting of the land register or for any other reason, the correction
reserved for description. 4. The right according to Art. 16 of the law is expressly reserved. 5. a) A natural reimbursement is required; b) In case of reimbursement in nature is not possible or in case of deterioration of the claimed property, the right is exercised
reserve the right to claim compensation, the amount of which will be disclosed in the course of the proceedings; c) All further claims based on the law are hereby asserted. We reserve the right to indicate their numerical height.
If the persons named under 2 are not currently the owner of the position, the claims asserted are directed against the current owner or owners of the position. In any case, the asserted claims for compensation are also directed against all persons currently unknown to us who have owned or owned the property since the confiscation.
We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration has been given to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurately and in accordance with the truth.
For the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization:
ra
Date: ……
species
(Power of attorney is available from the central registration office)
0006
wwwwwwwwwwwww
www
Jewish Restitution Successor
Organization (IRSO)
Frankfurt / Main2 Nov. 6, 1957
Ref .: JR. Ia 2011
To the reparation authority Upper Bavaria Munich, Deroystraße 10 / II
Subject: Withdrawal of Refund Claims.
The IRSO removes the as yet unfinished claims for reimbursement from the notification of October 26, 1948 ZIA no. 526766 JR Ia 2011 (persecuted: Ne u burger Benno
herewith back. The above RE claim is withdrawn in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the agreement dated March 16, 1956 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the successor organizations.
For the IRSO:
tendens
State Archives Munich
WB la 2011
Formbl. c.
WB_la_2878
0011
I 106042-a 24421/9898
Registration of the refund claim of the farmer Jacob Xolastan
W.
e
want
BITIE THE ABOVE Zentral-Anzeldeant FILING REFERENCE
17 Hebelstrasse (Philanthropist) FRANKFURT A. MAIN
He died in 1942 in Winchen and left Sophie Kolinstern and Sioctried Goats and four other children Otto, Nathan, Klara and Petla toata as his legal troubles. The last four children were half-birtled siblings of Sophie Kohnstanm and Siegfried Goetz, they stanuten from the 2nd marriage of Jacob Goetz with Karina Goeta, died in 1935. Siegiried coete and the 4 half-born siblings
and lost. Because of the presumption of death and d. s Irbrechts vorg1.ifler 2 of An1.1. After Article 78 MG. 59 ‘his by the 11th ordinance sum Reichsbürgerreget the succession of heirs as not occurred, by the cessation of all bri con heirs became the legal heir of the siblings Goete,
Untermenzing, according to more information was submitted later. 24. Hereditary faculties 25.-27. V .. Paragraph 1 attached to it. 1. 28. Joint inheritance to one eighth, further information can 30. 30.7.1940 in izohen 31. Sale of juealachen property under duress and
under ProLs and after Sept. 1935 to laenfer, that the Umeteende karunter berw. had to know, Latin consisted of the S 3 and 4 MG. 59.
n
33-36 Vol.
1er 1 of An.1.
Toobacústr. 12 This registration is also subject to any further emelabate assets, even to the extent that it is not nano-oriented, to suggest a restriction to Deibt. See page 2 -.
I desstattlich: 9 Insurance, After I was informed that uicio affidavit is intended to be presented to the reparation authorities and I was instructed in particular that the submission of a false affidavit
is punishable, I affirm the following in lieu of an oath: Z.P. My name is Tutory polotme and I am 46 years old by profession
residing in Beer Tarian Farmer 2.s. The information provided in the above application for section A.I.6. work done about meino
own person, that of the persecuted person, as well as about the right of inheritance are stated as completely and clearly as ic. they would also make an application for a certificate of inheritance. There are no persons who exclude or limit the applicant’s right of inheritance. The established investigations into the whereabouts of the persecuted person were inconclusive. If she were still alive, she would have turned to me because she knew my address. –
tumor
4er. Trazimh the … th ….. 1948 ….
.
0012
page
on the application of D. 42. The claim according to Par. 16 remains reserved in terms of reason and amount. 43. Reimbursement is required in nature, the claims to b, c, d remain with the
Reason and amount reserved, D .. entitled .. apply by resolution to recognize: 1. a. the ownership of the – part B.I.14,15,16 closer designated property – part
B.II, 17,18,19 – is again with effect from the date specified in part C.II.30 that in part A.III, to number
10 to 13 designated persecuted. b. the land registry has the prosecution on the basis of the legally binding decision
ten with effect from part c. II. Paragraph 90 date from in the land register of 1.a. to re-enter the designated property. – the ownership of the company listed in B.II.17 to 19 is with
Effect of the date recorded in part C.II.30 on the persecuted again. 3. a. The person obliged to reimburse has – from the above
Land from the above-mentioned operation – since from part C.II.Zif
at the apparent point in time taken into account and b. a portion to be determined by the court from the accounting
to pay the resulting amounts plus 4% interest since the submission of this application,
The reimbursement party bears the costs of the procedure. Eventually, the following is requested: a. The person obliged to reimburse has this – from Part B. I. 14 to 16 can be seen
The plot of land – the business enterprise evident from Part 3, II.17-19
to surrender and b. to consent that the person entitled with effect from Part C.II. Section 30
apparent date from again in the – land register – in the commercial register – as the owner. as the owner with the note of the exclusion of the assumption of liabilities – is re-registered.
I – We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
and made according to the truth, • Denco Timarks.den …. th. Mon …. 1948 …….
.
.
0013
106042
Kohnstamm
Beer too
Appendix 1 to the application by Jacob ko
If the items in question are missing, they will be delivered later if necessary and possible. If documents to which reference is made are not enclosed with the application, they will be
Copies of the written number will be submitted later. 2. To A. I. 6: As the persecuted person was last known to have been
in Germany resp. in one occupied by Germany or its allies respectively. annexed area, her stay is unknown since May 8, 1945, without any news that she was still alive at this or a later point in time, it is assumed, according to Art. 51 loc. cit., that she was on May 8, 1945 has died, if one does not see the day of the removal as the beginning of the mortal danger according to Par. 9 Paragraph 3 a. of the law on the declaration of death of July 4, 1939 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 1186) and thus wants to accept it as the day of death. The persecuted person has, through their stay abroad or by deportation across the German border according to ll. Ordinance on the Reich Citizenship Act of November 25, 1941 with November 27. 1941 and lost German citizenship when crossing the border. She was therefore stateless on the day of her death. Nevertheless, the German law of inheritance applies in accordance with Article 24 et seq. EGBGB. for them further. As a result of the deportation, she did not give up her place of residence in Germany. With reference to the attached affidavit of the entitled person – and the present documents – according to Art
property must be proven. 3. Re C. II. 31. a. – according to Art. 2 Paragraph 3 a.a.o. Forfeiture is considered to be near by law
4 op. – c. – the contract was concluded after September 15, 1935 (Article 4
Section 1). The person persecuted was, as the person obliged to reimburse, was a Jew, a reasonable purchase price was not paid, the legal transaction as such and with its essential provisions would never have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism – Art. 4 Paragraph la – the property interests the
persecuted person have not been noticed – Art. 4 Numbers 2. – 4. Re C.II:
37.
Reference is made to the basic files, purchase contracts, the relevant documents in the possession of the person obliged to reimburse, etc., upon which the authorized person in accordance with Par. 3.10 BGB. As well as to its information – see Art. 35 a.a.0, –
The right to appoint witnesses and experts etc. is reserved. 6. To III.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0173
An objection was filed on August 24, 1950. The referral to the Chamber was made by resolution of the W.B. I from 4 July 1952. Ass. Linder is advised that he must present power of attorney for Fred Neuburger and Hanny Strauss. Ass. Linder for RA. S. Neuland as curator of the estate for the heirs after Nathan, Otto, Thekla and Klärchen Goet z granted RA. Dr. Strauss power of attorney for the record. The proposal G. Johann Hirth explains: I bought the property in question as a field. I built a 6 meter long and 4 meter wide garden shed (wood, concrete base, no basement) on it. With a corresponding expansion, this would be suitable as living space. The property was fenced in 3/4 by me. I created about 200 gm of this fenced-in piece as a garden. Since the appointment of a trustee, I have not worked on the property any more and have leased it at an annual rent of DM 30.00. The property is not connected to the road network and has no water or light connection. At that time I bought the property for the agricultural value. After the purchase, I was told that, since the property was worth building, I would have to make a compensation payment. I do not know the development plan. There are only hereditary farms in the neighborhood and it cannot be assumed in the foreseeable future that a road will be built to the property. The Chamber proposes the settlement of a settlement: Payment of a severance payment of DM 3,000.00 on the part of Motr.G. at
the drive St. u.z. DM 2,000 as of 1/1/53 and the rest in installments within one year. The proposal G. Johann Hirth declares that he accepts this settlement proposal. After the Chamber had secretly deliberated, the chairman announced the following
Be se h l u ss: I. The drive St. will be given up within 4 weeks
to comment on the Chamber’s settlement proposal. II. New appointment is determined on
Thursday, December 18, 1952, a.m. 9.00 a.m., S.S. 216 / II.
The Chairman:
The secretary:
ner
0183
For Applicants: Kurt May from the Legal Aid Department,
Frankfurt / Main. The respondent Johann Hirth personally.
The representative of the Legal Aid Department hands over powers of attorney to Fred Neuburger and Johanna Strauss.
C.
D.
The following occurs between the parties
Teri 1 e ich ai established: for doimo bol nos comente comando 3 dny obsi 10
The respondents, Mr. Johann Hirth and Ms. Maria Hirth, Munich-Untermenzing, undertake to settle the claim for reimbursement made with the registration dated November 3, 1948 with regard to the property Pl.Nr.652 Odacker at 0.477 ha, entered in the land register of the local court -Munich for Untermenzing volume 3 page 437 sheet 1144- an amount of
olumsöda 3,000 DM
(mostly three thousand German marks). zabiosa dÍ The amount is due for payment by March 1, 1953, and is on a blocked mark account of the applicant at Bankhaus Hauck & Sohn in Frankfurt / M.
to remit. II. With the fulfillment of this comparison are all
l any legal claims existing between the parties from the registration dated November 3, 1948 after
EEG or for any other legal reason. III. The respondents bear the court costs.
The respondents assume an amount of DM 350 from the applicant’s representation costs, including binding. This amount is up
July 7, 1953 at the latest to the Legal Aid Department in Frankfurt / Main (Bankhaus Hauck & Sohn)
to pay. IV. This comparison becomes obsolete if the application
Opponents must pay the severance payment specified under item I by March 4, 1953.
The Secretary of the Protocol: Carmeleon
ruukilobyer. Mr. Kurt May and Mr. Joh.Hirth each order a comparative copy.
Beivo.
File begun English translation of Bavarian archive Docs October 22, 2021
REPRESENTATION AUTHORITY
MUNICH March 2nd, 1961 UPPER BAVARIA (W. B. I.)
Deroystraße 10 / II
Collective call: 591367 File number: I / N 3068
Acknowledgment of receipt! If you have any questions, please quote the file number!) Subject: BRÜG; here: Erbengem, n. Anna Neuburger ./. German Reich * Reference: Your letter of February 27, 1961 Enclosures: 1 copy of the certificate of inheritance from the Munich probate court
for Anna Neuburger of December 10, 1954, Reg.VI 1153/54 1 acknowledgment of receipt
Dear Dr Rosenberg,
In the attachment I submit the 0.a. Certificate of inheritance returned after inspection. We ask for a confirmation of receipt on the enclosed carbon copy.
Sincerely!
890 Since Dirian
Dr Kurt F. Rosenberg 26 Platt Street
New York 38, NY / USA MAR 1 7 1969 lankind Muminurhaliw. And chi’w madh arma Muborgu
91 re-registration (Dr. authority cainingen Oberregierungsrat
Received 27th MAR. 1961 Dr. Kurt F. Rosenberg
26 Platt Street New. Forte, 88, -ly,
awake Amo Murtomogen
n / A
Murthywbery
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
AZOOoooooooooo
il- 60b8 (2) Subject: pon en Hom ligger der man
M DE ULEI Subject:
nooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooob oooooooooo
Disposal
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
I.
The registration – the Lado case – is through
B1. 0.00
DLO OOOO eri
II.
S c h i u B b e h a n d l u n
56
Granting of house production March 20, 1961 Abolition of security measures: a.) Application for release, see B1. ‘. b) Deletion of the reimbursement note
ofosee Bho 4. Dismissing the file register 14
Return of the additional files: 6. Notification of the LEA 7. Notification of sale to the tax office 8. Put away.
n
5.
Munich, the
March 20, 1961
oooooooooo bloco doooooooo
Office
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
AZOOoooooooooo
il- 60b8 (2) Subject: pon en Hom ligger der man
M DE ULEI Subject:
nooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooob oooooooooo
Disposal
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
I.
The registration – the Lado case – is through
B1. 0.00
DLO OOOO eri
II.
S c h i u B b e h a n d l u n
56
Granting of house production March 20, 1961 Abolition of security measures: a.) Application for release, see B1. ‘. b) Deletion of the reimbursement note
ofosee Bho 4. Dismissing the file register 14
Return of the additional files: 6. Notification of the LEA 7. Notification of sale to the tax office 8. Put away.
n
5.
Munich, the
March 20, 1961
oooooooooo bloco doooooooo
Office
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Ref .:
M.
Jolo W
AZO8 oooooooooo
Reference:
Be tretze blonowe. Widgets how
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
lo
/
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Disposal
I.
The registration – the case … – is through
B1. Oooo
BLO OOOO
completed.
0.4 V
Issuance of the copies March 20, 1961 3. Abolition of the security measures:
a.) Application for release, see page b) Cancellation of the refund
entry note, file register
Submission of additional files 6. Notification of the LEA
Notification of sale to tax office 8. Put away.
see B.
or ao O
4th
+
42
5.
Munich, the
March 20, 1961
oooooooo 0 0 0 o 6 66oooooooooo
Office
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Ref .:
M.
Jolo W
AZO8 oooooooooo
Reference:
Be tretze blonowe. Widgets how
lo
Disposal
I.
The registration – the case … – is through
B1. Oooo
BLO OOOO
completed.
0.4 V
Issuance of the copies March 20, 1961 3. Abolition of the security measures:
a.) Application for release, see page b) Cancellation of the refund
entry note, file register
Submission of additional files 6. Notification of the LEA
Notification of sale to tax office 8. Put away.
see B.
or ao O
4th
+
42
5.
Munich, the
March 20, 1961
oooooooo 0 0 0 o 6 66oooooooooo
Office
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria (1B I)
Ref .: I /
Subject: BRÜG; j’all division
Available:
—
———
0
0
0
Registration – AZ .; IN . is divided into the following cases:
Case 1:
www ooooo
W goooo
ooooooooooooo
Case 1: W yw. Wuling ng Juana .be. because of (ref.) …. Wyps Wonderland nas bi pun me erl.a. Mogolnico ……… em ………. B1. Case 2. Vlh.fw. Whole loro nel bagno. /. M omento
erld. @I aoooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6 OOOOOOOOOOOOO DOVOOO
O O O OOOOOOOOOO • Oooooo 0 0
0
because of (reference to claim) ….
W ar Muww. ext.
…. .. ……… because of (reference to claim) ……….
@MI.
Case 4: …..
H
0
.
because of (ref.)
eriod
BLO ooooo
the
March 20, 1961
(Office)
H H
To the reporting file Posted on March 1, 1961 Il
File number: 3048 0046
REPRESENTATION AUTHORITIES
MUNCHEN March 2nd, 1961 UPPER BAVARIA (W. B. I.)
Deroystraße 10 / II
Collective call: 591367 I / N 3068 (If you have any questions, please quote the file number!) Subject: BRÜG; here: heirs Anna Neuburger ./. German Empire
Your letter dated February 27, 1961 Reference: Enclosures: 1 copy of the certificate of inheritance from the Munich probate court
for Anna Neuburger of December 10, 1954, Reg.VI 1153/54
1 Acknowledgment of receipt Dear Dr Rosenberg! In the attachment I submit the 0.a. Certificate of inheritance returned after inspection. We ask for confirmation of receipt on the enclosed carbon copy.
Sincerely!
Dr Kurt F. Rosenberg 26 Platt Street 38 New York, NY / USA
shouted
expired, on ……..
LASER
Ru 3.3.bi
Feb. 27, 1961.
26 PLATT STREET, NEW YORK 38, N.Y.
WHitehall 3-7587 song gumas. berörde Obb./M:11. ! Received 2. MAR. 1961
To the reparation authority I Deroystr. 10 / II Munich 2
IN 3068) Apy cute
Re: community of heirs after Anna Neuburger.).
German Empire
AZ: I / N 3068 Dear Sirs! (#3048 0045)
In this matter, I received the summons dated January 20, 1961, which I received by ordinary mail, only a few days ago.
My instructing client Fred Neuburger lives in California. Only today am I able to send you the certificate of inheritance that I am enclosing. I was forced to go to lawyer Dr. Georg Ott, Munich, to ask to keep the appointment in order to be able to pause the deadline.
Respectfully
Anthung
Reprint informally to: Oberfinanzdirektion München
Munich 2, Mwisoratraße 9
Lawyer
KFR: he
system
Informed informally
Hi 2/3
March 8, 1961 wum
3048 0044
delayed because received without recipient =
NontachDundannaat 194 / DAP108 NEWYORK 40/38 27 1147A EST Y
the end …
*
date
time
date
time
27 11 61 20 OR MARSSTRASSE 21 MUNICH =
Receive
sent
Name characters
place
Ott
TO TSt Munich
17526
Key note:
Received from
eill now!
4111TM FRANKF D
Ti 1.3.61
PERCEPTION APPOINTMENT NEUBURGER ERBEN GUTMACHUNGSBEHOERDE DEROYSTRASSE 10 ROOM 114 FIRST MARCH 10 AM STOP ERIELLE THNEN MAKES STOP AGAINST SHORT OR COMPARED FOR THE VALUE OF REICHSMARK 6.771 .– +
“MARSSTRASSE 21 MUNICH + KEIN RECEIVING MA NAME IS HERE A, a 19 or promptneho bike wear COL 10 114 6,771 .– + name crimph) on
Trufsagen 19.8 °? Al, 3044128 Oy.
Official queries
Aeon
+ C 187, DIN A5 (KI. 29 a)
(VI. 2 Appendix 4)a
0009
11.37456
-Off_0 &
from the land register for Untermenzing_Band_48 sheet 1907 p.501. Inventory: Plan No. 331 / Hartackerl to … ….. 0.1080 ha From Volume 3 Blat + 144 transcribed on November 24, 1939.
Department I:
Previous owner in volume 3rd sheet 144:
Götz and Neuburger-July 1916
Current owner: Nr.l: a Six Josef
Six Katharina née Kölbl in Munich, Allach,
Co-owner each half relinquished from June 23, 2939, registered on November 24, 1939. Purchase contract from June 23, 1999 Not. Paul Bauer in Munich, 11 PNr.1875 Department II: No.1: Gas, what guiding and usage rights for the city of Munich
registered on November 24, 1939.
No. 2: The plot No. 331 falls under dås according to Mil.Reg.Ges.
No. 52 blocked assets, registered at the request of the Bavarian State Office for Asset Management, Munich. Gem 6b. the AV.Nr.l zum Mil, Reg.Ges.Nr.2 on April 22, 1949.
Department III: Nr.l: 500.-RM book mortgage claim for road construction costs from the city
Munich, registered on January 9, 1940.
$
Free of charge
At the F
If the excerpt is correct: Munich District Court, Munich Land Registry, on February 14, 1950. Halsen
Mugu man (waltz)
(Kriester) JH. Inspector apl., Insp.
0010
the compensation authority I Sberbayern (WB I)
Munich, Arcisstrasse 11 / II
August 7, 1950.
Ref .:
JR Ia 69
Specify when answering!
In accordance with Article 61 (1) of the MRG 59 (Restitution Act), you are hereby requested to declare your claim for reimbursement within two months. If no objection is raised within this period, the restitution authority shall grant the application by resolution if the legal requirements are met. If you raise an objection, you are asked to submit the same in multiple production (one for the reparation authority, one for each applicant), stating the file number, to be sent to:
I.V.
Attachments: 1) Mr.
1 Registration of October 9, 48, Josef Six
1 amendment of July 26, 50 Munich-Allach
(nia i r) Lippertstr. 11 2) Brau
Katharina Six Munich-Allach
Lippertstr.ll 3) City council of the state authority
Munich as a mortgagee skyscraper
maun
For delivery to the post office
1 Aug 9, 1950
The certificate of the office of the Wiederguinac ysbehörde Oberbayero
rash Focal D • Ung min ax: Cochiilchille Me of the Priserguinachungsverwaltung Oberbayera
Delivery of the registration to the application. hominion – Verizaisk – informally co-gates
Aug. 11, 1950 The deed onto the office: Crna
0011
the compensation authority I Sberbayern (WB I)
Munich, Arcisstrasse 11 / II
August 7, 1950.
Ref .:
JR Ia 69
Specify when answering!
In accordance with Article 61 (1) of the MRG 59 (Restitution Act), you are hereby requested to declare your claim for reimbursement within two months. If no objection is raised within this period, the restitution authority shall grant the application by resolution if the legal requirements are met. If you raise an objection, you are asked to submit the same in multiple production (one for the reparation authority, one for each applicant), stating the file number, to be sent to:
I.V.
Attachments: 1) Mr.
1 Registration of October 9, 48, Josef Six
1 amendment of July 26, 50 Munich-Allach
(nia i r) Lippertstr. 11 2) Brau
Katharina Six Munich-Allach
Lippertstr.ll 3) City council of the state authority
Munich as a mortgagee skyscraper
maun
For delivery to the post office
1 Aug 9, 1950
The certificate of the office of the Wiederguinac ysbehörde Oberbayero
rash Focal D • Ung min ax: Cochiilchille Me of the Priserguinachungsverwaltung Oberbayera
Delivery of the registration to the application. hominion – Verizaisk – informally co-gates
Aug. 11, 1950 The deed onto the office: Crna
0012
TRSON
Registration of the reimbursement claim. V.9.10.48 Resolution of
m supplement, V.26.7.50 Summons to the appointment on ….
Arze Name of the document
Postal delivery certificate aan
At …………
on the delivery of a letter with the following inscription: Business number ……………… 69 City Council of the state capital
Sender: Office of the Reparation Authority Upper Bavaria (WB I)
all ün ch en München 2, Arcisstraße 11/11 Here a form for the delivery certificate.
skyscraper
Simplified delivery.
I have received the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker
here today – between o’clock
………….
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual | (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
and associations (including trading companies, etc.])
Company owner (before
the recipient – and surname):
the – head of legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
or chief
etc. in person
even in the apartment – the business room (business premises) –
in person in – the apartment – the business premises (business premises) –
…. to hand over.
… to hand over.
because I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises:
Binding margin
because in the business premises (business premises) during the normal business hours a) the encountered – head – legal representative
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented, b) the head legal representative – represent
authorized co-owner was not present, the recipient was employed there. Su ………
………. to hand over.
I did not find myself there, the ……. assistant ………. scribe –
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name): ……
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – head – legal. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
member, b) a serving person.
I did not find myself in the apartment, where a) the one belonging to his family woke up
his housemates, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
to hand over. b) de ………. adults serving in the family ……..
to hand over.
in the local apartment
……. did not find myself there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely the wife – the husband
the son – the daughter
to hand over. b) de ……. adults serving in the family
… to hand over.
Company owner
or landlord.
since I am the recipient – (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even not found in the apartment,
| in the apartment also delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to
did not find delivery to an adult person serving in the family
Adult housemates belonging to the family or to
an adult person serving in the family was not but not feasible, d …… in the same
was feasible, the ……. house living in the same house – landlord … – landlord + landlord …. – landlord ….. – namely de …….. …… ter … -, namely de ……….. de …….. was ready for acceptance. I d ……. was ready to accept.
2 and 3 under consideration.) Position left behind.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
the
(Continued overleaf)
0012
1.6
u0) Munich 2
Arcisstrasse 11/01
Registration of the reimbursement claim. V.9.10.48 Resolution of
Addition of 26.7.50
Summons to the appointment on … Brief description of the document
Postal delivery certificate for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription: Business number …….. JR.Ia … 69
. Mr. Sender: Josef S ix
. Office of the Reparation Authority Upper Bavaria (WB I)
li ü n c n e n-Allach Munich 2, Árcisstraße 11/11 Here is a form for the delivery document.
Lippertstr.ll_ Simplified delivery. I have received the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker
…. here today – between …….. o’clock
At.
in
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
and associations (including trading companies, etc.]) 1. To the – recipient – company owner (head | head – legal representative – representative recipient and surname):
Authorized co-owner – 1. or head, etc
even in the apartment – the business | in person in the apartment – the business space in person space (business premises) –
(Business premises) – …. handed over.
to hand over.
because I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises:
Binding margin
because in the business premises (business premises) during the normal business hours a) the encountered – head – legal representative
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – represent
authorized co-owner – was not present, there was the person employed by the recipient
to hand over.
I didn’t find myself there, the ……….. assistant ……… clerk –
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the head – statutory. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent
member, b) a serving person.
I did not find myself in the apartment, where a) the one belonging to his family woke up
his housemates, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
handed over, b) the ……. adults serving in the family
…. to hand over.
in the local apartment
…….. I did not find myself there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
… to hand over. b) de ……. adults serving in the family
………. to hand over,
ce
since I am the recipient – company owner
or landlord.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
(First and Last Name):
I did not even find it in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, d …… living in the same house – landlord .. landlord. …. namely de …….. de …… was ready to accept.
in the apartment …….. also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de ……. living in the same house – Landlord …….. – Landlord …… – namely de ……..
d …… was ready to accept.
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient here neither has an accommodation nor a business premises (business premises) – I have the letter at the place of the Zu
2 and 3 under consideration.) Position left behind.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
…….. , the ……
……… 1950
(Continued overleaf)
WB 15 5000 5.50
StAM_864_Birner. Bavarian archive documents in English:
WB_I_JR_69_0002
26
Clerk: Preventive measure: 15. (number of traps). 16. (Vervoisungsbeschluss-Art. 59) 17. (Referral to another WB)
(W3 to which was referred)
(Objection) 27. (Receipt of objection) 28.
Additional information requested from the respondent)! 129.
Receipt of additional information from the respondent) 130./n bild.ssa (quality deadlines) 31. {Withdrawal of the application) 32. 1: 12.179. (comparison)
33.
refund or fulfillment of amicable agreement)
34.
Order of reprimand to the reparation committee
Final reporter
| on: 10 Dec 1951
in the whole list srwd with / M. on 10 Dec 1951
Individual registration:
Ref .: No. Hombrelli
– Aug. 3, 1950 Neusburger, Nenbürger in 98th in Vorsan
728 Ahlg. 1951
ام
اساس
Ta 2878-7R 22 Remmeling
WB_I_JR_69_0003
Jewish restitution. Successor Organizatdon (IRSO.) .. as. Successor organization according to Article 10.11 MRG: 59 for Benno Neuburger, Goetz Klara, Thekla, Nathan and Otto Regional Office, Munich, Mühlbaurstrasse / IV :. _ well known
represented by power of attorney Bl. Legal succession
(Succession, etc.) Bl.
AGg. (Respondent)
Josef S ix and Mrs. Katharina, Munich-Allach, Lipperts tr.11
through
Power of attorney Bl.
Bet. (Participants) Art 61
as servicemen and …
Mortgagee
as
3
because of (object) property Untermenzing GB. Vol. 48, B1.1907, p.501, pl.Nr.331
Reporting
Registration (delivery) Bl.
Enlighten Accel.
. Contradiction
Events
File delivery to:
2nd value: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 *) Venerelle malu reports se
(Underline where applicable
Disputed amount:
DM
2 – Land 3 = Land rights 4 = Shares, holdings in other trading companies (e.g. GmbH shares). Securities 5 = art, cult and valuable objects 6 = amounts of money 7 = miscellaneous
Manz AG. 8.6.51
0004
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
301 Fürther Str. Nuremberg
To the
Central registration office
Reparation Authority:
職。 02972
Friedberg near Bad Nauheim
This registration corresponds to advertisement no.
The Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. New York (address to be used: Nuremberg, Fürther Strasse 301), which is regulated by the Implementing Ordinance No. 3 of June 23rd. 1948 was recognized as a successor organization within the meaning of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Law No. 59 of the Military Government, makes the following registration on the basis of Law No. 59 of the Military Government: 1. Name and last known address of the Jewish persecuted:
Benno Meubuerger, Muenchen, Trogeratx, bilis Klaerchen Goetz, Thelia Goeta, Nathan Coeta, Otto Goeta, all of them
In Muenchen, Fumtoxdate. 6/2 2. Name and address of the person liable for reimbursement (current owner or owner of the claimed asset):
Josef $ i * and Katharina, Muenchen-Allach, Lippertstr. 11.
Feb 16, w1950
Acker in Untermensing on Woonacherstr., Land register for tax community Unterstenking Ba, 3 Bl. 144 5. 437 n. 331.
of að
Request notification notified on:
This property has been subject to confiscation under Law No. 59 of the Military Government. In the event that the above description should no longer apply due to the rewriting of the land register or for any other reason, the correction
reserved for description. 4. The right according to Art. 16 of the law is expressly reserved. 5. a) A natural reimbursement is required; b) In case of reimbursement in nature is not possible or in case of deterioration of the claimed property, the right is exercised
reserve the right to claim compensation, the amount of which will be disclosed in the course of the proceedings; c) All further claims based on the law are hereby asserted. We reserve the right to indicate their numerical height.
If the persons named under 2 are not currently the owner of the position, the claims asserted are directed against the current owner or owners of the position. In any case, the asserted claims for compensation are also directed against all persons currently unknown to us who have owned or owned the property since the confiscation.
We hereby declare that all information contained in the above registration has been given to the best of our knowledge and belief, accurately and in accordance with the truth.
For the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization:
Date : …..
…… 91048
Wesna (power of attorney is available from the central registration office).
0005
as
tiaivot M ៗ ដដែល។ 9ycli5 75W od 9 tot nu a
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
REGIONAL OFFICE
b
Away
513
o bb./ Miunchen mage – 02.04: 1950
Munich, July 26, 1950.
Dr.Hg / Yes. No. AZ of the WB. JR 69 Our AZ: I / M – 799
-1024
would of
To the restitution authority I
– Upper Bavaria – Muenchen 2 Arcisstr. 11 / TT
dust
In matters
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION INC., New York, (hereinafter referred to as JRSO), as successor organization, beneficiary;
(Persecuted: Benno Neuburger, Klara Goetz,
Thekla, Nathan and Otto Goetz represented by
by Dr Ernst Me z ge Legal Director, IRSO Munich, Muehlbaurstr. 8 Applicant;
against Josef S IX and Mrs. Katharina,
Muenchen-Allach, Tippertstrasse 11
– respondent;
due to the restitution of a property in Untermenzing Pl.No.332, presented in GB for Untermenzing Vol. 48, B1.1907, 8.501
Involved:
City of Munich
as serviceman and mortgage creditor
We filed a claim for reimbursement in accordance with Art.
0006
the JRSO as successor organization through the. 3. AVO to MRG 59. Due to its timely registration, the JRSO has therefore acquired the position: of the entitled person (Art, 11. Para. 2, MRG 59), since no registration of an entitled person, or alleged entitled person, until December 31 Took place in 1948.
Publicly notarized power of attorney duly deposited with the reparation authority.
is requested:
and transfer of the same by the persecuted person has to be regarded as not having occurred with the effect that the JRSO is the owner of the same, namely since the date of the loss of rights by the persecuted person, namely the 23.
to surrender to the JRSO, step by step against the assignment of a possible compensation claim by the JRSO because of the purchase price that was not freely available to the persecuted person.
In the land register, step by step against repayment, in accordance with the Conversion Act, the purchase price that the persecuted person freely dispose of and the amount of the encumbrances existing before and since the withdrawal, unless they have been replaced by any other remaining encumbrances. .
.
to pay for the benefits drawn and to issue an invoice for them.
To tolerate women well.
Clear.
In order to justify these requests, in addition to the facts cited in the registration, and in particular with regard to the process of withdrawal; The amount and fate of the remuneration paid at the time, and the load limit, put forward the following:
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0007
The property was sold to the SIX couple for a purchase price of RM 2,500.00 with a document from Paul Bauer dated June 23, 1939 UrNo. 1875. The purchase contract is accompanied by an interim ruling from the AG Muenchen, which contains the statement that the sellers were Jews and according to Par.8 of the vo. about the use
Jewish property demolition of property by Jews with the approval of the Reg.Praes. need. As long as the counter-evidence has not been provided, we are of the opinion that the purchase price has been paid into a blocked account and has not come into the free disposal of the seller,
the legal transaction according to Artoh of the MRG 59 is contestable.
According to Article 3 of the MRG, there is a presumption of withdrawal. The fact that the legal transaction was subject to the use of Jewish assets shows that it would not have come about without the rule of National Socialism.
Dr. E. We zger Legal Director, IRSO Munich
garnish
cc / WB
Six Stadtgde.Mch.
0008Lettering
22215
Munich
01.972
Benno Neuburger, Menchen, Trogerstriklis Klaerchen Goetz, Thekla Goetz, Nathan Goetz, Otto Goetz, all in Munich, Purfordstrasse 6/2
Josef six and Katharina, luenchen-Allach, Lippertstrasse 11
Field in Untermenzing on Moosacherstr. Land register for stgde. Untermenzing, Vol. 3, B1.14, p. 437, P1.331.
9.10.48.
Wiesner.
Do the padhtikkeidis
Dr
Meger
Legal Director, TRSO Munich
ORSO OFFICIAL
OFFICE
ONAL
0009
A claim for reimbursement in accordance with Art
Successor organization by the 3rd AVO to the MRG 59. Due to its timely registration, the JRSO has therefore acquired the position of the entitled person (Art. 11 Para. 2, MRG 59), since no registration of an authorized person, or alleged authorized person, until 31. Dec. 1948.
properly filed, publicly certified power of attorney.
the persecuted person has to be regarded as not having occurred with the effect that the JRSO is the owner of the same, namely since the date of the loss of rights by the persecuted person, namely ……. 28.4.-3.7 ..
Step by step against the assignment of a possible compensation claim by the JRSO due to the purchase price not being freely available to the persecuted person
Step by step against repayment, in accordance with the Conversion Act, the purchase price that the persecuted person freely dispose of and the amount of the charges that existed before the withdrawal and that have been repaid since then, provided that no other remaining charges have taken their place.
the release to the JRSO of the dated
Trustee association
accepted uses.
pay and submit an invoice.
applications, as well as because of the load limit and the continuation of rights, or the liability for liability disputes exist, to decide on points a), b) and c) in advance.
0010
and in particular with regard to the process of withdrawal, the amount and fate of the remuneration paid at the time, and the load limit, the following submitted:
Benno Neuburger, Nathan Goetz and Otto Goetz, the latter also acting for their mother Regina and their sisters Klara and Thekla Goetz, sold the properties described above to the respondent on February 18, 1937 by means of document no. 570 from the notary Helmuth Schieok in Munich.
The purchase price was RM 20,020, Devon received a partial amount of RM 14,000. paid by handing over 2 sheoks; another partial amount of RM 2,000. had to be deposited at the notary’s office for the removal of a security pharmacy; the rest of RM 4,020 … half had to be paid to B.Neuburger, the other half to the bank account of Regina Goetz and her child or to the company H Aufhaeuser in Munich immediately after the proof of payment of the capital gains tax was provided by the seller. On April 28, 37, the respondent was entered in the land register as the new owner of the acquired property. It is not yet clear when the remainder of the purchase price reached Haendo der Sellers.
What is certain is that the sellers were Jews. This circumstance, together with the time of the sale, justifies the defendant’s obligation to reimburse in accordance with Art. 4 REG 59.
We reserve the right to amend the application.
Dr. E. Mesger Legal Director JRS O Munich
CC.W.B. 1 Krauss-Maffei 1 fan 2
0011
Absahrift.
Woenshen 7630 b
bomo Neuburger, formerly Murenahen Irogerstr. 44 and Regina Goetz, Trupher Niuenohan Rumfordstr. 5/11, this in Getergeneinsahaft with their children Yathan, Otto, Thekla and Klara.
Krauss-Maffei AG, Muonohen.Allaah, Krausschaffeistr. 2
, 您 器 系 否 器 主婚人 数 整数 經營 幾 着 素素, 統 整装 集 器,
一些 绝美 数 Ad $ $ 437 Bl 144 .84 29 $ 229 Bl 1297, Pinr 604, 683, 694, (Apoker).
11/25/48
Co
ch Dr. E.M@r Legal Director Jrso Munich
Puor the correctness:
0012
AKl. 97455
RO
2
3
PART – Off zu_8_
XXXXXX from the land register for Untermenzing Volume 38 Sheet 1609 Page_526_ Inventory :. 11r.10 Plan No. 688 Grosser Moosacherwegacker to … 0.736 ha No. 11 Plan No. 694 Soldiers field, Acker to ……… 0.79
0794 ha No. 12 plan No. 604 / Ballauferacker, Acker zu …..
0: 419 ha nos. Lo and 1l of volume 29 sheet 1297 p. 228 and no. 12 of volume 8 sheet: 144 p. 437 transferred here on April 28, 1937.
sas
Department I: Previous owner: Götz and Necburger each half
July 5, 1916 and December 30, 1981.
in Volume 29 B1.1297 and Volume 3 Bl.144. Previous owner in volume 38 sheet 1609: No.] Cashier Klara Schwanzer ereb, violinist in Bamberg
Conclusion of March 12, 1936, registered on August 22, 1936.
Current owner: Ir.2: Lokomotivfabrik Kraus und Co., J.A.llaffei, Alttiengesellschaft
inchen, abandonment from February 18, 1937. Purchase contract from February 18, 1937, Not.Helmuth Schieck in Munich TENr. 570. Division II:
No.3: 10.11 gas-water pipeline, and right of use for the town
Munich, registered on April 28, 1937. (May 15, 1926) ITT department:
Without entry.
Free of charge
For the correctness of the move: Tentsgericht wünchen, Rundbuchamt
Nünchen, on February 14, 1950.
$ 9P
Vienna
hot Alser
Mizer) JH Inspector
m
(-Warriors) aploj, insp.
A.
0013
March 27, 1951
As the reparation authority I
Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Munich, Arcisstr. 11 / II Tel. 1837 58431
JR Ia 22 AZ .: Please state when answering!
Pursuant to Art. 51 Para. 1 of the MRG 59 (Reimbursement Act), you are hereby requested to declare your claim for reimbursement within two months.
If no objection is raised within this period, the restitution authority shall grant the application by resolution if the legal requirements are met.
If you raise an objection, you are requested to submit the same in multiple copies (one for the reparation authority, one for each applicant) with the reference number.
Investments:
To be sent to:
1 JRSO short registration
v.25.11.48 1 registration supplement
6.6.2.51
Locomotive factory Krauss Maffei AG. E. Munich-Allach
I.v.
Maun
For delivery to the post office
March 28, 1951
(M a i r).
The document archives of the Cresca office of the Wiederautniemu basi ehörde herhavers
Lidl: idlauf. To: Urzuzusbcamta of the Coachüftzstrile i reparation authority Upper Bavaria to
Z-suggestion of adding da..Antrag- “— P – o .o3 miigoielli
TV.
The Urkaza never the business id up 🙂
27.3 / 6.
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0014
JRSO
Registration of the reimbursement claim. V 25.11.48 U. decision of
Addition of 6.2.51 summons to the appointment on ….
e Name of the document
Postal delivery documents
At
on the delivery of a letter with the following inscription: Business no. JR Ia 22
Krauss-Maffei locomotive factory Sender: Reparation office
Authority Upper Bavaria (WB I) Munich 2, Arcisstrasse 11 / II
Simplified delivery.
I have received the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker
here today – between …… o’clock
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual
companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
(Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations
and associations (including trading companies, etc.])
– Company owner (before
represent
the – recipient and surname):
the – head – legal representative – authorized co-owner –
or chief
etc. in person.
even in the apartment – the business | room (business premises) –
in person in the apartment – the business premises (business premises) –
……. to hand over.
… to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner in the business premises
(First and Last Name): ……..
Binding margin
– as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the – head – legal representative
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented, b) the – head of the legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent – was not present, the M
A .. …. . ………… to hand over.
I did not find myself there, the … assistant …………. clerk
..
to hand over.
since I am the empränger – company owner (first and last name):.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – Head of the statutory. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent
member, b) a serving person.
I did not find myself in the apartment, where a) the one belonging to his family woke up
sénen housemates, namely the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
to hand over. b) de ……… adults serving in the family
….. to hand over.
in the local apartment
……..
…… did not find myself there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
to hand over. b) de ……. adults serving in the family
……. to hand over,
or landlord.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
I did not find myself in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, d …….. living in the same house – landlord … – Landlord ……. – namely de … de …….. was ready for acceptance.
not found in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not feasible, de ……. living in the same house
Landlord …… – Landlord …… – namely de …
…… was ready to accept.
(Only occurs in cases 1,
2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient here neither an apartment nor a business space. (Business premises) I left the letter at the place of delivery.
* I have noted the day of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was sent. M inhen will that
… 195.2
(Continued overleaf)
WB 15 10 000 11.50
0015 (title page)
0016
Restitution Authority I Hof, Kóple /
MUNICH, February 20, 1951 1949 Upper Bavaria
Arcisstraße 11 / II file number: JR Ia 22
Telephone: 2831-39 1831 (if you have any questions, please quote the file number I)
Party traffic only Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. MRG 59 – JRSO as follow-up org. ./. Locomotive factory Krauss-Maffai AG.
Your reference I / M 798 reference:
meet
Investments:
For the purpose of delivering the registration to the first acquirer, Klara Schwanzer, née Geiger, in Bamberg, you are requested to provide the full current address of those named.
I.V. man (Ma i r)
To-die JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8
grs hr on
Feb. 21, 1951 wbgl on ………
20,216
0017
Redress authority
Upper Bavaria Müncftempe, Arcissiraße 11
Munich
27th of March
the……
……. 1950
JR Ia 22
Ref.:. (Always specify for answers and entries)
Re: MRG 59 Art. 61 Para. 4 (Refund note) Reference: Property (heritable building right) in: Untermenzing, Pl.Nr.688 Gr.Moosacherwe gacker
to 0.736 ha
Starts in 2,694 soldier fields covering 0.794 hectares of tax community. U menzing
“604 Ballauferacker to 0.419 ha Volume: 38 … Page526 ….. Sheet: 1609 …
On the basis of Act No. 59 of the Military Government (Restitution Act), the restitution of the aforementioned land / leasehold has been applied for. In accordance with Art. 61 Para. 4 and Art. 72, a request is made to enter the reimbursement note in the land register free of charge.
To the district court – land registry
M ü ne h en
1.V. mouse
(Seal)
(M a ir)
written on
given March 128, 1959
fishing rod. Rovinblatt WBA (Elist tuldguhg of the reimbursement note)
Manz AG
27
316.
0018
Redress authority
Upper Bavaria Müncftempe, Arcissiraße 11
Munich
27th of March
the……
……. 1950
JR Ia 22
Ref.:. (Always specify for answers and entries)
EL …!
District Court of Munich, Grimdbuch Department,
(13b) Munich 35, the ……. APR., 19.5.1 …. 194 ..
Prielmayerstr. 5.
No
Subject: Because of HsNr … Current majorities:
Reparation 1 authority Obb.7 Munich Elngog. 1 2nd APR. 1951
do.
Appendix
At the request of the reparation authority Upper Bavaria from. Az ……
…. nurde today according to Article 61 IV of the Restitution Act, with the neighboring property in the land register for ..hon. M … 666..B1..38 … S .. .. entered the
Reimbursement claim of the previous owner, ..
AD a) The Restitution Authority
Oberbayera, Miinchen, Areisstr, baie current owner c) the creditors.
0019
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
ROEN
.
MUNICH – ALLACH reparation
Telephone 81321 To the
bobo de Obb., Munich Long-distance call Munich F72
Telegraph 063/865 reparation authority input.
Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach AOR 1059
Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. Upper Bavaria
ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed.
Bentley’s code. Munich
IRTA
Bank accounts:
Bayerische Creditbank Munich Arcisstrasse 11
Landeszentralbank München 6/851 Postscheckkonto München 731
Your sign
Your message from
Day
27.3.51
Our mark KS-Rt / F
April 16, 1951
Reference:
AZ .: JR Ia 22
We object to the JRSO’s claim for reimbursement in the case of Neuburger and Goetz.
We initially deny that the reimbursement claim was made on time. The confirmation attached to the application does not provide sufficient documentation for this. We can only recognize the timely assertion of the claim as proven if this is confirmed in writing by the central registration office Friedberg near Bad Nauheim.
There is no case of withdrawal here. On February 18, 1937, the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz sold to us the parcels specified in the application of February 6, 1951 at the price of RM 20,020. The purchase price was paid in February 1937.
In 1937 we acquired parcels of land in the vicinity of our factory premises in Munich-Allach from numerous neighbors for the purpose of the later expansion of the factory premises and for settlement purposes for our workers. The area in question in the present case is for a larger one. Settlement, for which the building plans are already available to the responsible authorities. At the time, negotiations with the property owners were conducted through a property company. The total area we acquired at that time is around 120 days, of which the properties claimed here account for around 6 days, i.e. around 5%. At that time, all sellers were granted the same prices and conditions. The community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz was not discriminated against. The prices correspond to the legal maximum prices of the time; Even the non-Jewish sellers received no other prices. The purchase of the parcels constitutes a withdrawal within the meaning of Law 59
us therefore not. Copy informal
-2 to JRSO
Farmlos communicated on: 20.4.57 The 20 April 1954
SVI 9.50
20,000 beer bottles
The Kurdish official at the office of the reparation authority in Oberbaven
0020
(KM)) KRAUSS – MAFFEL. STOCK COMPANY. MUNICH-ALLACH.
Sheet 2 to the letter of April 16, 1951 to the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria
Munich, Arcisstrasse 11
The real estate company commissioned by us approached the individual owners and made them an offer, regardless of whether the owners are people who fall under the Nuremberg Laws or not. The landowners concerned were completely free to choose whether they wanted to make use of our purchase offer or not. The prices we approved at the time exceeded the tax unit values by 25-30%. No coercion has been exercised against anyone.
The properties are therefore not withdrawn from the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz for reasons of race, religion, nationality or ideology (Article 1, Law 59). The deal was in no way contrary to common decency and was not caused by persecution (Article 2). The presumption of withdrawal (Article 3) is refuted by the fact that the community of heirs was paid a reasonable price. We paid the seller the full purchase price. If the proceeds were later withdrawn from the sellers through measures taken by the Reich, which we do not know, this is in any case in no way related to the transaction concluded between the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz and us. This deal would have been concluded between the parties even without the rule of National Socialism and is therefore not subject to challenge. (Article 4)
The fact that no one from the community of heirs of Neuburger and Goetz has so far made claims for reimbursement allows the conclusion that those directly affected see the business as a regular business act and not as a confiscation. We therefore request that the JRSO’s claims be rejected.
A copy is included.
Kr a u ss – M a f f e i
Public company Multito ppalain
0021 0022 Not much there
0023
Registration of the reimbursement claim. Decision from the summons to the appointment on ..
Brief description of the document
Postal delivery certificate
about the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
JR Ia 22 business no ….
At
Company. Sender: Reparation Office
Krauss-Maffei authority Upper Bavaria (WB I) Munich 2, Arcisstraße 11 / II
Munich-Allach Here a form for the delivery certificate.
Krauss-Maffeistr. 2 Simplified delivery.
in
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker at – Uller
here today – between
MM
clock
and
clock
(Form for delivery to individuals, Einzel-1 (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporations, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs.)
and associations (including trading companies, etc.)
the – recipient – and surname):
Company owner (previous |
the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner –
or chief
etc. in person
the business
even in the apartment – room (business premises) –
in person in – the apartment – the business room (business premises)
to hand over.
to hand over.
Binding margin
since I am in the business premises (business | da in the business premises (business premises) during the | local) the recipient company owner’s normal business hours
ter – co-owner authorized to represent – at the
Acceptance was prevented
authorized co-owner – was not present, assistant …………… clerk
| there handed over to the w .. employed by the recipient.
M A RA …………….. handed over.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name):
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the head – statutory. Representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
ghed, B) a serving person.
even not found in the apartment,
in the local apartment … there
……… I did not find myself there, a) the adult housemate belonging to his family to the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely marriage
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
to the son – to the daughter … |
to hand over. b) de ………. adult serving in the family b) de …. adult serving in the family.
………. to hand over.
or landlord.
since I am the recipient – company owner (first and last name): …
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even not found in the apartment,
in the apartment also the delivery to one of the family
did not find delivery to a listening adult housemate or to
Adult housemates belonging to the family or to an adult serving in the family
an adult person serving in the family was not but not feasible, d …….. was feasible in the same, the …….. house living in the same house – landlord …… . – Rented! – Landlord ……. – Landlord. – namely de .. ter ……. -, namely de …… de …….. was ready for acceptance. d …… was ready to accept.
2 and 3.)
Since acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
Mrema: Olle, the 25th, O ….. 1951
(Continued overleaf)
WB 15 10 000 11.50
0024 – 0025. Nothing
0026
–
The factual and legal situation was discussed with the parties. The defendant’s representative fundamentally denies any reimbursement claims by the JRSO. As a justification, it is asserted that the A-opponent acquired land under the same conditions from different owners to expand the factory premises and for settlement purposes for the workers. The sellers would have been free to accept or reject the A-opponent’s offers. The · A opponent had paid the maximum prices allowed at the time to all sellers. Since there is no causal connection with political or racial persecution measures, the A-opponent rejects any claim for reimbursement.
The representative of the JRSO reserved the right to comment in writing on the objections of the A-opponent and to declare by 7.7.51 whether the reimbursement claims would be maintained or withdrawn. If the reimbursement claims are upheld, the documents showing that the previous owners were Jews must be submitted. In this case, the matter is to be referred to the Reparation Chamber at the Regional Court of Munich I at the request of the respondent’s representative,
disposal
Copy of the protocol to:
1) JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8 2) Krauss-Maffei AG.
Munich-Allach
Informally communicated June 13, 1951
The notary office of the Wiedergut u stenorde Oberbayer
0027
KRAUSS – MAFFEI. STOCK COMPANY. MUNICH – ALLA CH
Power of attorney
==================
We authorize our Mr. Georg G r u be r to represent our company in the matter of the reparation authority ./. Krauss Maffei.
Mü.-Allach, June 6th, 1951 K-St / s.
K r a vs S – M a f f e i
Corporation
volkmh 13. Prime
www
ppa.
i.V.
SV8 3000 5. 50 beer
0028
Toil from the land register for Untermenzing vol. 38, 31att 1609, page 526. – – – – – – – – – – Inventory directory:
No. 10 F r. 688 Big Loosacherwendoker for …. 0.30 e ur. 11 11.11, 694 oldstenacker, Aoler au ……….. 0.794 ha dr. 12 1.1r. 604 Balleuforacker, icker to …. 0.419 hi
von-Volume 3, Blatt 144, 5.437 here or transferred i April 28, 1937.
Department I:
turbasitsom: Gitz and new number 19 delite
5th July 1916 and 30th Jozomder. in saad. Pero127 and Doud1.11.
Now there is greatness. 2 Lokomotivfabrik krone und Co., fol. Maifei. in.
Painchen, resolution of February 18, 1937 and inetr. 16. Sales contract v. February 18, 1937, lottelman Schieck in Inchen, URAT ,!
Abtoilure II: ir. 3; 10, 1] Gas-aggerleitura-lodeniitzungsrech ‘: thr the city
Dirchen, an etr. m 8,41937 (May 15, 1926)
Department III: without Dintron,
A MTsNr the Richti-koit des Ausgaron
A pricht solnchen -ab. Land register Nichen, May 1951
Manh
Jock
HEN
Ceb.froi.!
Justinr.
0029
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Widdergutmachuudism boede Obb./ Munich
MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 44 522 – 44531
Work. – JULY 7, 1951
Munich, July 6, 1951 Dr. H Ro AZ: 17 M 798
To the reparation authority I – Upper Bavaria
Munich 2 Arcissttaasse 117 II
Subject: JR 22 reimbursement (Neuburger Goetz). /. Kraus-Maffei AG. Object parcels in Untermenzing.
Rome
In this matter we are to declare by July 7th, 1951 whether we will maintain our claims or withdraw them.
In order to be able to answer this question, we have written to the mandatory Ite supplement. However, since we have not yet received a settlement, we kindly ask you to kindly extend the deadline by around 14 days until July 20, 1951,
We assume that the opponent also agrees with this, enclose a copy of our letter and therefore ask that you refrain from referring it to the Chamber until the decision has been reached.
JRSO MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE Dr. E, Meziger, Director
Joan
1.4. Dr. Kurt # ago
La
Formlo
Enclosed copy of letters to Krauss-Maffei Copy of the above letter for Krauss-Maffei Ag. Munich Allach
Kraussmaffeistr 5 10.7.59 mani Fermlos communicated
July 1, 1951 pe / (clerk of the clerk office of the reparation authority Oberite
0030
EWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Widdergutmachuudism boede Obb./ Munich
for the
Menchon, June 18, 1951. Dr. Kg.Ro AZ: I / 1 798
kra u s8 – M af lei AQ. 2. Hdno Merrn Director Georg G r u be r Muenchen – Allach Krauss- Nanostrasse 5
Subject: Refund JRSO (Meuburger – Gosta »
Parcels in Untermenzing.
We come back to the gueta negotiations conducted at the reparation authority and in particular to your brief of April 16. KS / Rt / F, in which the assertion is made that with the total of 120 tgw acquired at the time, all sellers were granted the same prices and conditions. We would be grateful if you gave us a few who at that time made purchases with other buyers besides Heuburger Goets, so that we are able to check the correctness of your assertion. We thank Twen for your efforts, which should only serve to clear up and clear up the repayment and recommend ms
Sincerely, JRSO MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE Dr. E. Mezges, Pirector
0031
RODERIE
Reparation authority I Upper Bavaria
inchen, November 19th. 1951 Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 / III Telephone number: 20354, 27666
povo bo 19 Ion9 Bnetno pobo de ton ORDED a brone B dead PAS sro Av. JR Ia 22 ocarameter
etterLOTOOK 110: the
OoNOV 10 Reference Register No. 110
20 NOV. 1951 C
ommons m iin goeil I Teatros
Cloud b TO THE In terms of things
with ……….. Annexes Jewish Resitution Successor Organization Inc. (JRSO) as successor organization according to Art. 10.11 MRG 59 for: Neuburger, Benno and Regina Götz. tet les conditions
(Applicant) represented by Regional Office Munich Mühlbaurstrasse 8 / IV … from the dead
SDEN DOS renojosa no 88 -anon PH 29 Dnes Lokomotivfabrik K ra u S S – M a f fe i AG, Munich-Allach
(Respondent) GO
STITATS soortentioned TI represented by Gruber. Georg, in Krauss-Maffei AG, Munich-Allach
I NDIO Isbaengd nois i noies Is The Nortoise as follows
ISOV on Borob nehotne sred no Jaioafisao il teba
1921st non solo
Decision: C o robodisi The thing is to the Olov toroiobhten or
hen, ia bootlomeromonas Jose acts 5 Restitution Chamber at the District Court of Munich I referred referred: rode sbric r ü n d e
19 NOV 20 Degasesenes foe
919 omo poenados geöfnoeg gee it.
: ascoa13H
1b Noia STV 10 10 The formal sequence of the procedure can be seen on the overview sheet … 1 p. 2o [windogts deid on
free down rad The JRSO demands with a short registration dated November 25, 1948 and an additional registration dated February 6, 1951, the reimbursement of the plots No. 688, 694 and 604 of the tax community Munich-Untermenzing, which the Jewish previous owners Benno Neuburger and Regina Götz, each as co-owners Half on February 18, 1937 for 20,020.00 RM to the respondent. The reimbursement claims are based on Art. 4 MRG 59. :
The JRSO asserts the reimbursement claims as those of the military government according to Ausf. Vo. No. 3 in conjunction with Article 10 ff MRG 59 appointed successor organization for Jewish assets.
The reparation authority could not find in its own file or in the central file of the country that the jü =
Zozo offices:
To the reparation chamber at the Munich Regional Court I Munich (with file JR Ia 22). equal day Referred case JR Ia 23 is pointed out.
Dispatch notification to the parties issued on Nov. 20, 1951. Cathy
0032
The persecuted persons or legal successors or allegedly authorized persons in relation to the property registered for reimbursement have registered claims for reimbursement in Bad Nauheim by December 31, 1948. Accordingly, it must be assumed that according to Art. 11 Para. 2 MRG 59 the JRSO has acquired the legal status of the persecuted on the basis of its registration,
reco e 990 D
a te The abbreviated registration was sent to the respondent on 93 March 29, 1951 with the supplement to the registration. With a brief dated April 16, 1951, she raised an objection in good time and submitted that there was no case of withdrawal. In 1937, the respondent acquired land from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the factory premises in Munich-Allach in order to be able to expand the factory premises and build a settlement for the workers. The negotiations with the individual property owners were conducted by a property company. 19 All sellers were treated equally. The Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Götz were not discriminated against. The real estate company made offers to the individual landowners and the landowners were completely free to choose whether or not to accept the offer. The purchase price corresponded to the legal maximum prices at the time and was reasonable. Since the legal transaction contested by the JRSO came about without any coercion and would also have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism, the JRSO’s claims for reimbursement are unfounded. The quality deadline of 7 June 1951 remained inconclusive. Since the JRSO did not withdraw its claims for reimbursement within the initially reserved declaration period, the matter had to be referred to the responsible reparation chamber at the Munich District Court I upon application by both parties.
erotus The same procedure JR Ia 23 is referred to the reparation chamber at the regional court Munich I at the same time.
.
.
. asta Done F.
9
vacuum cleaner
0033 Nothing
0034
The persecuted persons or legal successors or allegedly authorized persons in relation to the property registered for reimbursement have registered claims for reimbursement in Bad Nauheim by December 31, 1948. Accordingly, it must be assumed that according to Art. 11 Para. 2 MRG 59 the JRSO has acquired the legal status of the persecuted on the basis of its registration,
reco e 990 D
a te The abbreviated registration was sent to the respondent on 93 March 29, 1951 with the supplement to the registration. With a brief dated April 16, 1951, she raised an objection in good time and submitted that there was no case of withdrawal. In 1937, the respondent acquired land from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the factory premises in Munich-Allach in order to be able to expand the factory premises and build a settlement for the workers. The negotiations with the individual property owners were conducted by a property company. 19 All sellers were treated equally. The Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Götz were not discriminated against. The real estate company made offers to the individual landowners and the landowners were completely free to choose whether or not to accept the offer. The purchase price corresponded to the legal maximum prices at the time and was reasonable. Since the legal transaction contested by the JRSO came about without any coercion and would also have been concluded without the rule of National Socialism, the JRSO’s claims for reimbursement are unfounded. The quality deadline of 7 June 1951 remained inconclusive. Since the JRSO did not withdraw its claims for reimbursement within the initially reserved declaration period, the matter had to be referred to the responsible reparation chamber at the Munich District Court I upon application by both parties.
erotus The same procedure JR Ia 23 is referred to the reparation chamber at the regional court Munich I at the same time.
.
.
. asta Done F.
9
vacuum cleaner
E ODŠTr oop Tube I. V. 19 decenas
signed Dr. Hennig For the correctness of the copy.
Mülasben, November 19, 1951 (Dr. Henn i g)
The document shark of tosi S dor Wiòde fyltedentnybei tuon
Het duo intern
ess
MUNCH
CUEN.NO
Ever
Ver
0035
EWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
MOHLBAUR STRASSE 8 / IV. TELEPHONE 445 22-44531
To the reparation chamber at the District Court I.
Munich, January 22nd, 1952 Ga./Sd. AZ. I / M – 798
Munich
district Court
24 JAN. 1952 | Münden!
In terms of JRSO (Neuburger)
./.
Copying of the letter to the application – Stette
n
Krauss-Maffei-A.G.
Act 2. I WK V 68/51
sent andet
becomes the reimbursement claim
maintain.
It is undisputed that the Jewish salespeople Neuburger and Goetz have the plan numbers 604, 688 and 694 by contract dated February 18, 1937 to the application
enemy sold.
It is undisputed that the respondent has also acquired a number of further parcels in the same complex of land, namely 605, 606, 608, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616 1/3, 617 to 627, 670, 673, 674, 676, 677, 678, 684, 685, 689, 693.
-2
0036
This fact is not sufficient to justify the defendant’s objection under Art. 4 Para. Ia. We refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950 (RzW 1950, -page 302, No. 10):
“The fact that neighbors parcel at the same time and under the same conditions
Lenverk aeufe have made can only then
a certain probability that the testator has sold the parcel in question without any particular coercion, if there are no neighbors for this property
special reasons for their parcel sale
The respondent would have to prove that the non-Jewish Veraeus
Those of the land had no special reasons, e.g. urgent need for money, for the sale.
III.
But there is also the following: Since 1937, a number of property owners have consistently refused to apply for their properties within the same complex
to sell opponent. It is your own
Tower of the plot 605 Ž – a house has been built on this plot in the meantime – 607, 607 à, 609, 616 – there is also a house on this plot
-3
0037
Proof: Testimony from Mr. Georg Hackl.
If the court deems it necessary, can
The owners of the following parcels are also questioned: 6053 Mathias and Elsa Statzner, née Schader,
Parkstrasse 34, 607 Jakob Ostermeier and Viktoria Engelhart b.
Ostermeier, Ruess-Strasse 36,
Vio
Josef and Franziska Irinkl, Untermenzing,
Kirchenstrasse 9, 681) 682; Wolfgang and Anna Frey in Scheidegg.
All these witnesses will confirm that the respondent tried to purchase the property at a price of RM 3,500 per day, but that the owners refused to sell at this price
sern.
We summarize:
The respondent intended to use the whole complex of land from plan no. 604 to plan no. 628, and from plan no. 670 to plan no. 694 to get hold of. It is true that it offered all the owners the same price. However, not all owners decided to sell. Therefore
the defendant’s attempt must fail, the
-5
0038
– 5 –
To provide evidence that the business with all its essential components came about even without the rule of National Socialism
were.
Two copies are included.
Yalewali
System.
Walter
G a 1 e w s k i
0039
– File number: I wx 68151..69751. Winchen, the ……… 1954
Reparation Chamber. at the District Court of Munich I.
e ri n 8 best immune
BE
….. before .. !! … o’clock, boardroom 257/111.
through delivery of responses due to a) Applicant – representative (address B1.) – Representative (* @, party
…….
III. File recovery: 1) Yoruwd why..for … Norint inter in Kutcumuenzing
3.) Einhals wotlasheid har 19 36 and 1984 recover, IV. “Addition on charge” to A.St.- A.Gel
the procedure I, had been 68151 and I wkr 49/51 for the timely negotiation and decision-making with each other. .. … d ……..
The chairman: Regarding the delivery to har .Thana-Mafter 3) Asks minister>
to Pozí through the court week. m i with persistent form
1) il ne lur. hift.m. 1), e). 3) recovered
29.1.5e your
Mense
www
0040
IRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei AG
Deadline March 4, 1952 Postal delivery certificate for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
“
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
JR: 9: 0:
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr.
JR I WKV 68751 Number of pages d. A .:
Munich. Regional Office
Munich Mühlbauerstraße S / V /
I have the above letter in my capacity as a postal clerk to 2 here today = between ………… and ………… ……. … at noon (time can only be given on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual || (form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corporate companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including commercial companies, etc.) to the – recipient – company owner
the – head – legal representative 1. To the
– Co-owner authorized to represent – (first and last name) recipient
or chief
even in – the apartment – the business premises in person in – the apartment – the business premises etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person met – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – representation
authorized co-owner – was not present, the unula employed by the recipient there
m au passed.
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
as there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
by a serving person
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
, handed over, b) the adults serving in the family
in the local apartment
did not find myself, there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
to hand over. b) the …… adults serving in the family
to hand over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
or landlord.
as there is no special business premises (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent
I did not find myself in the apartment, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, the … landlord living in the same house … – landlord … , – namely de ..
in the flat. did not find, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de ….. in the same house – landlord … – landlord., namely de
de
was ready to accept.
de
was ready to accept.
(Only applicable in cases 1, 2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
Voddau the
195.14 ..
30,000 5.51 F. B.
(Continued overleaf)
0041
0042
IRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei AG
Deadline March 4, 1952 Postal delivery certificate for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
the City Council of the City of Munich – Section LO –
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr. JR I WKV 68-69 / 51
Munich high-rise, Blumenstr.
Number of sheets d. A .:
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal worker to … M 4A here today = between ………… and ……. am ……. …. at noon (time can only be given on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual | (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
| companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including trading companies, etc.) 1. To the recipient – company owner
the – head – legal representative – representative recipient (first and last name)
authorized co-owner – or head of department
even in – the apartment – the business premises in person in – the apartment – the business premises etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
……………….
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
as in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person met – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner – was not present, there the oset damer employed by the recipient
to hand over.
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over.
since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner –
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
, handed over, b) the adults serving in the family
to hand over.
in the local apartment
…… did not find myself there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter …
to hand over. b) the …… adults serving in the family ….
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
or landlord.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even in the apartment, the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, the landlord living in the same house … – landlord …, – namely de ……
in the apartment …….., also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de …… living in the same house – Landlord …. – Landlord … namely de.
de
was ready to accept.
de
was ready to accept.
(Only applicable in cases 1, 2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered. ..M iclau …, the 26th
A t h … 195.2.
30,000 5.51 F. B.
(Continued overleaf)
0043-0046 Not much there
0047
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
A K TIEN SOCIETY
Landars
– FEB 4, 1952 mundi
To the
Reparation Chamber in the District Court of Munich I
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Munich Palace of Justice
Day
January 31, 1952
Your reference your message from
Our reference subject:
KS-Wo / F JRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei file number: I WK V 69/51 and 68/51
In the above-mentioned matter, the submission of the application body of January 22nd, 1952, compels us to conduct extensive investigations. As this will take a long time, we ask you to cancel the date for the oral hearing, which has meanwhile been set for March 4, 1952, 10:00 a.m., and to not set a new date until our reply has been received. In addition, our syndic, Dr. von Rintelen, who is working on the matter, is unfortunately urgently forced to travel on March 4th, 1952.
Sincerely! Kr a u s / s – M a f f g i
Public limited company Wu Tam h ppa Monem
discontinued. kunne treenine will be determined upon receipt by at least Schrisscherhus announced by U. Geguein. as A. Guguwin, this christchulz is also given (putted until 20.3.1
นม สิน ระ ห ag –
nit. Wmny rerama-Mapper m. To the rest through the Gees
m Liber with Nainas Monum
อา ร ยา
to submit. Important separation calendar
i
และ
wu
lu
W.V. m.
k.20.3.52
Senatsprüsi dan
SV 1 11.51
20,000 beers
4.2.52
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the Supervisory Board
0048-0053 Not much
0054
IRBO • /. Krauss Maffei
Date 4.3.52 Post delivery certificate (unloading) for the delivery of a letter with the following inscription:
At
Simplified delivery. Here is a form for the postal delivery certificate.
the city council of the state capital
Munich – Unit 10 –
Sender: Office of the Regional Court of Munich I Reparation Chamber
Business nr.
JR I WKV 68-69 / 50
……..
Mü n …….. e …. n high-rise, Blumenstr.
Number of sheets d. A .:
I have the letter referred to above in my capacity as a postal clerk at ….. 144 .. here today = between ……….. and …….. o’clock …. ……. noon – (time only on request)
(Form for delivery to individuals, individual || (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
companies, lawyers, notaries and bailiffs) || rations and associations (including trading companies, etc.) 1. To the – recipient – company owner
the – head of legal representative – recipient of representation (first and last name)
authorized co-owner or head
even in – the apartment – the business premises || in person in the apartment in the business premises, etc. in person. (Business premises) –
(Business premises) – handed over.
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner (first and last name) in the business premises
ETC.
because in the business premises (business premises) during normal business hours a) the person found – head – legal representative –
co-owners authorized to represent – at the acceptance ver
was prevented, b) the – head – legal representative – authorized representative co-owner was not present,
there the ye employed by the recipient
t u
hand over
did not find myself there d
Assistant
– clerk
to hand over. since I am the recipient – company owner
(First and Last Name)
as there is no special business space (business premises), and I also the – Norsteher – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
I did not find myself in the apartment, there a) the adult housemate belonging to his family, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter –
-, handed over, b) the adults living in the family
to hand over.
in the local apartment
… not found myself, there a) the adult house belonging to his family
enjoyed, namely – the wife – the husband – the son – the daughter
-, to hand over. adults serving in the family …………….
to hand over.
since I am the – recipient – company owner
(First and last names)
or landlord.
since there is no special business space (business premises), and I am the – head – legal representative – co-owner authorized to represent –
even in the apartment did not find, also the delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not possible, de … in the same house living – landlord .. – landlord, – namely de .
in the apartment .. did not find delivery to an adult housemate belonging to the family or to an adult person serving in the family was not feasible, the landlord living in the same house – landlord … – landlord. …, dreadful de
//
de
was ready to accept.
I de
was ready to accept.
(Only occurs in cases 1,
2 and 3.)
Since the acceptance of the letter was refused – and the recipient has neither an apartment nor a business premises (business premises) here – I left the letter at the place of delivery
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered. i st, the ….
1954 thrall
(Continued overleaf)
30,000 5.51 F. B.
0055
Postal delivery certificate JEN
completed back
Munich 35 Palace of Justice on Karlsplatz
Office of the Regional Court of Munich
to the
In my capacity as a postal worker, I have the letter referred to above to … here today = between ……….. o’clock and … o’clock ………. noon (time only on request), form for delivery to individuals, | (Form for delivery to authorities, municipalities, corpo
|| rations, associations (including trading companies, etc.) Strikethrough the notice of service on the || (Only valid if the notice of delivery is crossed out on the previous page).
on the previous page).
laying
because I have the – recipient + company owner there is no special business space (business premises) in front of (first and last name)
is acting and I also the – head – legal ver
treter – co-owner authorized to represent – ….. not even found in the apartment and in the apartment the delivery was not sent to a family member
did not find, and the delivery neither to a hearing adult housemate nor to ei
Adult housemates belonging to the family still to an adult person serving in the family
| an adult serving in the family could still be carried out to the landlord or landlord,
the landlord or landlord was executable at the registry of the local court
to the registry of the local court. laid down, –
deposited at the post office
deposited at the post office at …,
resigned to the community leader to …
deposited with the community leader u ..,
laid down, b. d. Police chief too laid down. || to the chief of police
– laid down. A written notice of the resignation || A written notification of the deposit at the address of the recipient
Address of the recipient – has been delivered in the usual way for normal letters has been handed in in the usual way for normal letters –
has been given, since the delivery is in the same way as for ordinary letters, since the delivery in the usual way for ordinary letters was not feasible. –
was not feasible, was attached to the door of the recipient’s apartment – was fixed – fixed – to the door of the recipient’s apartment, someone is in the neighborhood, a person living in the vicinity of the recipient is to be passed on to be passed on to the recipient handed over to the recipient.
been.
I have noted the date of delivery on the envelope of the letter that was delivered.
………, the
19 ……
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 22
0056
Tax office Munich-Land Candgeridt
7.2.1952 30 Subject VII
Munich, current issue 42 III 203 B
-EFER. 1952
Herzogspitalstrasse 18
Telephone number 22841 – 43 il ünchen I
Postal check account no. 1718 Munich Re: properties owned by Irania
mempel der Gde. Mü-Untermenzing, PlNr. 688, 694, 604 and 679 Your letter of January 29, 1952 IR I WKV 68-69 / 51
In an air raid on December 17, 1944, all files of the assessment office were destroyed. Unfortunately, your request for the files to be sent cannot be granted. The above-mentioned plots with a total area of 25,560 square meters were rated with 0.90 DN each “on”. The standard value for this is accordingly 23,000 M.
On behalf of: signed Neudecker
ATEN
(Certified:
EN.07
AROUND
To the office of the Munich Regional Court I Restitution Chamber, office 126
employees
INZAM
COMMON. ENTRY POINTS
-8th. FEB. 1932)
W 2105 ….. Nachaw …. Entry officer ……
Wiv. in my opinion
. 21.3.52
in White 11.22
0057
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / IV. TELEPHONE 445 22-44531
district Court
! 8 MAR. 1952 Mint
To the Reparation Chamber at District Court I.
Munich, March 7, 1952 Ga ./Sa. AZ. IMM – 780
I / M – 798
Munich
Submission of the pleading to application – Stadter – Gear sent on …….
In terms of JRSO (model and
Neuburger)
Krauss Maffei A.G.
Act 2. I WK V 68 and 69/51
On February 7th, the Chairman of the Chamber canceled the deadline set for March 4, 1952, on the grounds that a new deadline should be set after receipt of a written statement announced by the Respondent.
This brief is up to today
te, i.e. after a month, has not been received by us.
Since in our brief of
January 22nd essentially just did
actual explanations are included
It should not be so difficult for the respondent to take these mainly from the land register
to comment on these statements.
Youuuuh Walter G a 1 e w s k i
Appendix: 2 copies.
0058
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
district Court
March 20. 1952
ng chamber
Dogs i
To the Reparation Chamber at the Munich Regional Court, Munich Palace of Justice, Abschilik der Schririsatzes
on application – place scher abskot am wageningen
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Your sign
Day
Your message from
Our sign
KS-Dr.Wo / lu March 17, 1952 JRSO (Neuburger and Götz against Krauss-Maffei A.G.) Akt. I WKV 68/51.
Reference:
In the matter described above, we respond to the applicant’s submission of January 22nd, 1952, as follows:
Nalfom, gan
Shrbach
First of all, we deny that Ms. Regina Götz and her children – co-vendors of the plots No. 604, 688, 694 – are of Jewish descent and are therefore affected within the meaning of Article 1 REG. So far, at the oral hearing before the reparation authority on 7 June 1951, the applicant has only been able to prove that Mr. Neuburger was of the Israelite religion. So far, she has not provided evidence that the Götz family was also of Jewish descent. It is therefore not authorized to assert a claim for reimbursement for the Götz property shares.
2.
The facts presented by us very well justify the objection from Article 4, paragraph la. The applicant is right in claiming that the fact that a reasonable purchase price has been paid for free is not enough to prove it
-2
SV1 7.51
20,000 beer bottles
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
0059
It is sufficient that the sale transaction would have come about in its essential components even without the rule of National Socialism. This is determined by Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Restitution Act. However, the same provision forces the reverse conclusion that the fact that the payment of a reasonable price can very well constitute the aforementioned evidence if it is related to other facts and these also point in the direction that the business came about without the rule of National Socialism were. But this is the case here.
It is undisputed that all the properties that belonged to the complex we acquired in the Allach-Untermenzing district were sold by Jews and non-Jews on the same terms, at the same time and at the same price. The applicant misrepresents these facts. Your statements give the impression that we had bought from some non-Jewish and some Jewish landowners at the time; The Jews only sold us because they were under the pressure of National Socialism, the other sellers because they were forced to do so for other special reasons. The landowners, who had no particular reasons, could and would have refused without further ado.
In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite: Almost all the landowners who were approached agreed to the sale after a long, sometimes shorter deliberation. Out of a total of 25 people asked, only the 5 named by the applicant refused. Of the 20 owners who sold to us, there are only two for whom reimbursement claims are being made today, namely Neuburger and Model. None of the property owners had any particular reason to sell. The reason for the sale was simple and understandable for everyone, the prospect of doing a deal and getting cash in hand. In any case, this is what they have expressed to the intermediaries who work for us. There were special reasons against it
0060
The landowners who did not sell, namely, they either wanted to build themselves on the site we wanted and have also built in the meantime, such as Wallner and Statzner named by the applicant, or they were in principle opposed to any property sale from the start, such as . B. Trinkl, who never before or later and also today does not want to give anything from his property, regardless of the conditions. To prove this factual presentation, we name
Mr. Alois se y bold
Munich Schleissheimerstr. 240
as a witness. At the time, Mr. Seybold, as an employee of the real estate brokerage company, which acted as an agent in the real estate business, conducted the essential discussions with interested parties.
For this reason, the applicant fails to refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950:
On the one hand, we believe that our presentation of the facts can provide the evidence required there that the non-Jewish property sellers had no particular reasons for the sale; on the other hand, we consider the passage quoted by the applicant from the reasons for the judgment to be by no means a generally binding statement, but rather a conclusion that is only understandable and plausible from the situation at which a decision was made at the time. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had to rule on a case in which all property sellers – including one person affected – were under pressure to sell that came from the authorities. These were plots of land that were intended as a settlement area as part of state planning and were to be built on according to official guidelines. In this case the landowners had no choice but to sell to the building prospect if they did not want to run the risk of losing their land
0061
To lose expropriation or to no longer be able to use it later at all. In any case, this fact prompted the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt to state that the sale transaction, even if those affected and those who were not affected had sold at the same time and under the same conditions, could only be regarded as having come about without the rule of National Socialism if it was proven that the unaffected landowners had no particular reasons to sell. A generalization of this formulation does not seem to be appropriate for the reasons given.
The applicant claims, in order to maintain the presumption of withdrawal, that our agents at the time made false claims against property owners during the purchase negotiations against their better knowledge. We firmly deny this. We deny that people who acted on our behalf gave incorrect information to Mr. Wallner and Mr. Hackl and thereby wanted to force them to sell. The already known witness, Mr. Seibold, will be able to confirm that no such information was given in any case.
In summary, we state: 1.) We bought from Jews and Gentiles alike
Conditions, at the same price and at the same time.
2.)
All sellers received a reasonable purchase price. They received it freely in cash.
3.)
No pressure, coercion or other unfair business methods were used in the sales negotiations.
4.)
All landowners who sold, alienated of their own free will, olane special occasion. Special reasons gave the owners who did not sell an occasion.
-5
0062
5 –
We believe that these facts require the conclusion that the sales transaction with Neuburger would have come about without the rule of National Socialism and therefore request the rejection of the reimbursement claim.
K
Sincerely !. a uss – M a f is i Aktiengesellschaft
Rear
0063
KRAUSS-MAFFEI
STOCK COMPANY
ano court! . 20 MAR. 1952
To the
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I
MUNCHEN – ALLACH Fernsprecher 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code. Bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank Munich Landeszentralbank Munich 6/851 Postscheckkonto Munich 731
Di ünchen Justizpalast Copy of the pleading
to application – submitter: opponent eigesanct to
u raanaa your reference your message from
Our sign
KS-Wo / lu subject:
Day
March 17, 1952
JRSO (Model versus Krauss-Maffei A.G.) Akt.Zeich. I WKV 69/51).
In the above-mentioned matter, we reply the following to the applicant’s submission of January 22, 1952:
The applicant is asserting a claim for reimbursement because, in her opinion, Mr. Siegmund Model was under the pressure of National Socialism when he sold his land and the sale would not have taken place without the rule of National Socialism. Dr Arthur Model, the son and heir of Mr Sigmund Model, stated in front of witnesses on May 3, 1951 that he considered the matter with this transaction to have been properly dealt with and that he did not want to have anything to do with the clearing house. Proof: Mr. Alois Se y bold
Munich, Schleissheimerstraße 240 as a witness. In our opinion, this declaration must be countered by the applicant, if a person concerned or his heirs see a sale of assets as a proper, legitimate business act, the successor organization, which after all has to represent its interests, can hardly claim the opposite. We refer in this context
-2
SV 1 11.51
20,000 beer bottles
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
0064
on the decisions of the WK Kassel from June 20, 1950, quoted in the NJW supplement to the reparation jurisprudence. 1950 page 335 and the OLG Frankfurt dated November 16, 1950 cited in NJW supplement 1951 page 99.
2.
The facts presented by us very justify
REG probably the objection from Article 4, paragraph la. / The applicant is right when it asserts that the fact of the payment of a reasonable purchase price at free disposal alone is not sufficient to prove that the sale transaction in its essential components even without the National Socialism would have come about. This is determined by Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Restitution Act. However, the same rule forces the converse conclusion that the fact of the payment of a reasonable price can very well constitute the aforementioned evidence if it is related to other facts and these also point in the direction that the business could be carried out without the rule of the National Socialism would have come about. But this is the case here.
It is undisputed that all the properties that belonged to the complex we acquired in the Allach-Untermenzing district were sold by Jews and non-Jews on the same terms, at the same time and at the same price. The applicant misrepresents these facts. Your statements give the impression that we had bought from some non-Jewish and some Jewish landowners at the time; The Jews only sold us because they were under the pressure of National Socialism, the other sellers because they were forced to do so for other special reasons. The landowners, who would not have had any particular grind, could and would have refused without further ado. In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite: Almost all the landowners approached, after a long, sometimes shorter deliberation, declared themselves with the Ver
ー 3
0065
– 3 –
I agree to purchase. Out of a total of 25 people asked, only the five named by the applicant refused. Of the 20 owners who sold to us, there are only two for whom reimbursement claims are being made today, namely Model and Neuburger. None of the property owners had any particular reason to sell. The reason for the sale was simple and understandable for everyone, the prospect of doing a deal and getting cash in hand. In any case, this is what they have expressed to the intermediaries who work for us. The landowners who did not sell were for special reasons. They either wanted to build themselves on the site we wanted and have now also built, such as Wallner and Statzner named by the applicant, B. Trinkl, who never before or later and also today does not want to give anything from his property, regardless of the conditions.
To prove this factual account, we name Mr. Alois Seybold, Munich, as already mentioned, as a witness. At the time, Mr. Seybold, as an employee of the real estate brokerage company, which acted as an agent in the real estate business, conducted the essential discussions with interested parties.
For this reason, the applicant fails to refer to the decision of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of April 24, 1950:
On the one hand, we believe that our presentation of the facts can provide the evidence required there that the non-Jewish property sellers had no particular reasons for the sale; on the other hand, we consider the passage quoted by the applicant from the reasons for the judgment to be by no means a generally binding statement, but rather a conclusion that is only understandable and plausible from the situation at which a decision was made at the time. The OLG Frankfurt had over one case
–
4th
0066
– 3 –
in which all property sellers – including one person affected – were under pressure to sell that came from the authorities. These were plots of land that were intended as a settlement area as part of state planning and were to be built on according to official guidelines. In this case, the landowners had no choice but to sell to those interested in building if they did not want to run the risk of losing their land through expropriation or later no longer being able to use it at all. In any case, this fact has prompted the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt to state that the sale transaction, even if those affected and those not affected had sold at the same time and under the same conditions, can only be regarded as having come about without the rule of National Socialism if it is proven that that the unaffected landowners had no particular reasons to sell. A generalization of this formulation does not seem to be appropriate for the reasons given.
The applicant claims, in order to maintain the presumption of withdrawal, that our agents at the time made false claims against property owners during the purchase negotiations against their better knowledge. We firmly deny this. We denied that people who acted on our behalf had given incorrect information to Mr. Wallner and Mr. Hackl and thereby wanted to force them to sell. The already known witness, Mr. Seybold, will be able to confirm that no such information was given in any case. We emphatically deny that people who acted on our behalf asked Mr. Model’s land tenants not to pay any more rent to Model. The people at the real estate brokerage company who conducted the purchase negotiations for us only had to do with the property owners, who ultimately had to decide on the sale alone.
-5
0067
-5
In summary we state: 1.) The son and heir of Mr. Siegmund Model, Dr. A. Model,
has declared his father’s real estate transactions, which are the subject of this proceeding, to be properly settled, the applicant must accept his declaration against him.
2.) We bought from Model on the same terms, on the same
Price and at the same time as from all other sellers.
3.) All sellers received a reasonable purchase price.
They received it freely in cash.
4.) During the sales negotiations there was neither pressure nor compulsion,
or other unfair business practices.
5.) All landowners who sold, sold out
Free items without a special reason. Special reasons gave cause for the owners who did not sell.
We believe that these facts urgently require the conclusion that the sales transaction with Model would have come about without the rule of National Socialism and therefore request that the claim for reimbursement be rejected.
Sincerely! Kr a u ss – M a f fe i n Aktiengesellschaft
ppa
etalon
0068
File number: I wk 68769 / ?.
Onze already
Mitchen der om … ‘
künchen, the ………. 1951
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I.
Ini n sb @ 8 timmun
……. the …….. wed …….. 1951 in front. 10 … a.m., meeting room 257 / III.
Tongues III. File recovery: ..
Ahh. Accelerated delivery of 3 letters. Krauss-Massei v. 17.3.02 delivery
20.4.52 Resubmission for ….
.. @.
The Chairman:
0069 – 0081 Forms or hand written text
0082
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V TELEPHONE 445 22 – 44531
To the
district Court
17 APR. 1952 Chamber of Commerce Munich I
Munich, April 16, 1952 Dr. H / Gr.
Reparation Chamber at Regional Court I,
Az,: I / M 780
IMM 798
Munich,
Palace of Justice,
Part of the pleading in Antras – See Gachar Kona posted on
ANASPORA
Corte
In terms of: JR I WK V 68/51
JRSO
KRAUSS – MAFFEI A.G.
Let us comply with the decision of the Chamber
of 7.4.1952, in which we received the charge
competent address of the witness Georg
H a e k i announce as follows:
Georg Hackl, Munich.Allach,
Manzostrasse 65.
We allow ourselves that at the same time
polite request to be made, too
the other witness to the appointment of
7.5.1952 wanting to load, namely Mr.
I am from further zenzen
To be found at the date of 3. 7.5051! shi malsuprafarthen G. Joukl in
Wallner Erl, see p. 42 backs. I, M. w. G. In
Otto Wallner, Munich.Allach,
Manzostrasse 47.
9/21/57
This witness, too, turned out to be at the time
refused to give his property to the Krauss.
Maffei A.G. to sell
rallyn
Attachment: 2 copies.
Dr. E. Ndzger Legal Director JRSO Munich
0083
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAUR STRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 445 22 – 44531
To the Reparation Chamber at District Court I.
Munich, April 4, 1952 Ga./Sd. AZ. I / M – 798
Munich Palace of Justice
District Court 1-5. APR. 1952
In terms of JRSO (Neuburger)
Krauss-Maffei A.G.
Copy of the pleading to Request – Sater – Geonar
absice am.5 Freun Maffei & Sladi Chircher Repro
Act 2. I WKV 68/51
Let us take the liberty of commenting on item I of the clarification resolution of March 21st that according to Par. 12 FGG
the reparation chamber has to determine on its own initiative whether the previous owners were Jews.
gesit z. In conclusion, the claims that must already be able to wet Amelch danlar Inschrind, how they knew him!
ایران و
onlleli
We checked the card index of the residents’ registration office and found the following:
Ms. Regina Goetz nee Heymann, as well as her children Nathan, Otto, Klara, Thekla Goetz, all residing in Munich, Rumfordstr. 6, were Jews and as such in the file of Ein
registration office noted.
-2
0084 – 0086 Forms
0087
City Councilor of the City of Lünchen, Division 10 – Legal Department
21 APR 1952
Address: Munich City Council, Section 10 – RA
Long-distance call office hours, high-rise building, Blumenstr. 28 b
4566/215ean Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri
Room number. 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. To the
512 / V Chamber of reparations Postal check account of the city main office: at the district court of Mü.I Munich, No. 115
Bank and savings bank accounts in Munich 35
City main office:
State Central Bank of Bavaria No. 6/165 Palace of Justice.
Bayerische Staatsbank Nr. 40 115 Bayerische Gemeindebank Nr. 1115 Städt, Sparkasse Nr. 3000 Kreissparkasse Nr. 54 500 Bayer. Hypoth. And Wechsel-Bank No. 400 248 Bayerische Vereinsbank No. 207 620 Bayerische Creditbank No. 31 232 Bayerische Bank for Trade and Industry No. 5894 Bankhaus Merck, Finck & Co., No. 2119 Bankhaus Seiler & Co. , No. 18518
Bank for economics ù. Arb. A.-G. No. 33333 Your reference Your message from Our reference
Munich KV JR 60
21.3. Subject: IRSO /. Krauss-Maffei for refund.
In view of the fact that the rights of the city in the above-mentioned procedure already exist in accordance with Art. 37, Paragraph 1, last clause REG, we refrain from starting the … May 7, 1952. Torm. 10.30 to send a representative. We ask, however, to send us a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
.Co., No. 18518 4119
Bank f, econom
I wkthres Kicke-6977592 Aachezsht 20152. unkere 40ch A. Salinchen 4.52.
40
Dr. Sauter municipal senior legal councilor
0088
Copy of the pleadings to the request – StellesGeguony sent on 2452
KRAUSS – MAFFEIOAKTIENGESELLSCHAFT · MUNICH – ALLACH n. An hadt Munich
To the
District Court April 23, 1952 Nilungen
Reparation Chamber at the District Court of Munich I
Munich
Justice building
April 19, 1952 KS-Wo / F
Subject: IRSO ./. Krauss Maffei
Act 2ch .: JR I WKV 68/51.
In the matter described above, we comment below on the requirements of the clarification decision of March 21, 1952: Regarding point 2 of the decision: The defendant has so far become aware of the following addresses of sellers of the neighboring properties:
sold: Josef Ziegler, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 19 (Pl.Nr. 620) Franz Grassl, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 7 (P1.Nr. 689, 678) Mrs. Amalie Storzum (Wwe des Friedrich Storzum) Munich, Dom Pedro Platz 6
(P1.Nr. 673) Franz Alz, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 34 (Pl.Nr. 605) Josef Forstner, Mü.-Allach, Vesaliusstr. 24 (Pl.Nr. 677) Josef Forstner, Mü.-Untermenzing, Kirchenstr. 19 (Pl.Nr. 608, 693) Therese Bugger, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 36 (P1.Nr. 615, 627) Karl Schwägeri , Mü.-Untermenzing, Allacherstr. 10 (P1.Nr. 606) Hans Frey, Munich, Marsstrasse 5 / IV
(P1 No. 670) Jakob Os termair, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. (Pl.No. 612, 613)
14 Mathias Granti, Mü.-Untermenzing, Eversbuschstr. 54 (P1.Nr. 614, 676)
(Mine
The addresses of the other property sellers have not yet become known to the defendant, despite their efforts. If she is still able to determine addresses, she will inform the court immediately. The defendant will submit statements by the seller about the reasons that prompted them to sell to the court in a few days.
Kr a us s – Ma f I e i
Aktiengesellschaft 2 copies are attached
ppa malam
24,492
mell
TELEPHONE: 81321 – TELEPHONE: MUNCHEN F 72 TELEPHONE 063/865. TELEGRAMS: KRAUSSMAFFEI MUNCHENALLACH
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W. O. Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel 5000 Bierl
SV 6 10.50
0089
Former numbers and file numbers: I 520 288 -a 56848-IR 22
I 520 289 -a 56849-IR 23 File number of the Reparation Chamber: IR I WKV 68/51
IR I WKV 69/51 Date
MIN. Protocol
recorded to in public session
the reparation chamber at the district court of Munich I
Munich, May 7, 195
Currently: District Court Judge Dr. Tittiger
as chairman, district court advisor Dr. Goerkev Ger. Assessor Runge
as associate judge, court clerk Hinterholzer
as deputy documentary official.
Roo, Munich Enforceable copy
groot sy romu – Yumy
Ini Ludhe Arte
ZS61 ans 6 lamb to the profession
In matters
aan
Jewish Restitution Successor Organization
IRSO -, New York, Munich Regional Office, Munich, Mühlbaurstr. 8 / IV Munich Bee
23
21
é o t
e
‘- against
c
OBAT
Krauss – M affei A.-G., Munich-Ablach,
Kraus Maffeistr. 2 Posep Toe –
IES
for reimbursement appear after calling the matter: 1.) For the applicant: Dir.Dr. Mezger, general leg. 2.) For the respondent: Dr. Helmut Wolf under handover
a power of attorney. The summoned witnesses Aloys Seybold, Georg Hackl, and Otto Wallner also appear. De The witnesses are exhorted to state the truth and instructed about the consequences of a false affidavit or unofficial testimony. The witnesses are first released from the meeting room.
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0090
It is established: In the case IR I WKV 68/51, the registration was made in the correct form and in due time on November 25, 1948, delivered to the respondent on March 29, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated April 16, 1952, received by WB I on April 19, 1951. With the decision of WB I of April 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the Reparation Chamber. In case IR I WKV 69/51, the application was submitted in due form and in due time on November 25, 1948, and served on the respondent on July 26, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated July 27, 1951, received by WB I on July 30, 1951. With the decision of WB I of November 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the reparation chamber. It is also established that the court linked the two things with an order of January 28, 1952.
ESTS
After a short factual discussion, the following comes between the parties involved
conditional comparison
conditions:
I.
The respondent pays to settle the applicant’s compensation claims from the registrations of November 25, 1948 regarding the property registered in the land registry of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 38 B1.1609 page 526, plan nos. 688,694 and 604, and regarding the property , registered in the land register of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 42 B1.1716 Page 281-Plan-No.679,680,683, 686,690,691,692,610,611, the amount of
cargo 20,000 DM (roughly twenty thousand German marks)
8 days after this settlement becomes final, in II. The amount of 20,000 DM is to be paid on
the settlement account of the IRSO No. 11874 at the
Bavarian Discount Bank Munich, Maximiliansplatz. III. The parties involved agree that the
Blocking note in the land register with regard to the properties, listed under Section I, is deleted.
0091
It is established: In the case IR I WKV 68/51, the registration was made in the correct form and in due time on November 25, 1948, delivered to the respondent on March 29, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated April 16, 1952, received by WB I on April 19, 1951. With the decision of WB I of April 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the Reparation Chamber. In case IR I WKV 69/51, the application was submitted in due form and in due time on November 25, 1948, and served on the respondent on July 26, 1951. The objection was filed in due form and in due time with a written submission dated July 27, 1951, received by WB I on July 30, 1951. With the decision of WB I of November 19, 1951, the matter was referred to the reparation chamber. It is also established that the court linked the two things with an order of January 28, 1952.
ESTS
After a short factual discussion, the following comes between the parties involved
conditional comparison
conditions:
I.
The respondent pays to settle the applicant’s compensation claims from the registrations of November 25, 1948 regarding the property registered in the land registry of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 38 B1.1609 page 526, plan nos. 688,694 and 604, and regarding the property , registered in the land register of the Munich District Court for Untermenzing Volume 42 B1.1716 Page 281-Plan-No.679,680,683, 686,690,691,692,610,611, the amount of
cargo 20,000 DM (roughly twenty thousand German marks)
8 days after this settlement becomes final, in II. The amount of 20,000 DM is to be paid on
the settlement account of the IRSO No. 11874 at the
Bavarian Discount Bank Munich, Maximiliansplatz. III. The parties involved agree that the
Blocking note in the land register with regard to the properties, listed under Section I, is deleted.
0092
canceled. Each of the parties involved bears the court costs
the half. V. The IRSO declares to be the beneficiary and
undertakes to indemnify the respondent from any claims by third parties due to the above-mentioned objects in the amount of the settlement amount received, provided that she is immediately informed of such claims and the respondent follows the instructions in defending against such claims
according to the IRSO. VI. Thus all mutual claims are after
Mil.Reg.Ges. compensated. VII. Withdrawal period for both parts until May 30, 1952.
CARICHI
It is explained to the called witnesses that a conditional settlement has been reached and that they do not need to be questioned as witnesses at the moment.
After a secret consultation of the Chamber, the following is issued
Decision B:
If the settlement is revoked, a new date will be officially determined.
The Chairman:
The secretary:
Mukalwer.
Dr Me zger and Dr Wolf for Kraus-Maffei each order a copy of the protocol.
order 1/550 sulun
turn
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 22
00104
KRAUSS MAFFEIS
MAFFE Lonxoerid
June 9, 1952
STOCK COMPANY
MUNICH – ALLACH
To the
Reparation Chamber at the Regional Court of Munich I Munich
Telephone 81321 Fernruf München F72 Telegraph 063/865 Telegrams: Kraussmaffei Münchenallach Codes: Rudolf Mosse Code / Suppl. ABC Code 5th & 6th Ed. Bentley’s code bank accounts: Bayerische Creditbank München Landeszentralbank München 6/851 Postscheckkonto München 731
Your sign
Your message from
Day
Our mark KS-Wo / F
5.6.1952
Reference:
JRSO ./. Krauss-Maffei due to reimbursement of file numbers JR I WKV 68/51 and 69/51
In this matter, the JRSO informed us by letter dated May 30, 1952 that it finally agreed with the settlement concluded on May 7, 1952, in which a severance payment from our side in the amount of DM 20,000 .– was agreed. We therefore ask that you issue a copy of the settlement, which is provided with a legal notice.
Sincerely! Kr a uss – M af f e i
Corporation
и аррала,
SVI 20000 11.51 beer
Board of Directors: Paul H. v. Mitterwallner, Oskar Stamm, Erich W.O.Busse. Chairman of the supervisory board: Hans Rummel
Other set of documents: WB_I_JR_69_
0023
AL
II.
Mr. Benno Israel NEUBURGER, Miss Kla erchen, Sara GOETZZ, Miss Thekla Sara GOETZ, Mr. Nathan GOETZ and Mr. Otto Israel GOETZ sell the property designated under I, including legal accessories
at
the married couple Herm Josef and Mrs. Katharina S IX, as co-owners, each with an unseparated half. The parties involved are on the transfer of ownership
Some
and approve and apply for this change of law to be entered in the land register.
III. The price are
RM 2,500 .– – two thousand five hundred Reichsmarks – It is due for payment as soon as the approval of the government priest has been received by the notary. Until then, the purchase price is 4.1 / 2% – four and a half percent – annual interest. From the purchase price are
RM 1,250 .– – one thousand two hundred and fifty Reichsmarks – plus the interest on its amount to be transferred to the joint account of Otto Nathan, Thekla and Kla.erchen GGOETZ at the Sailer & Co. in Munich, and
RM 1,250 .– – one thousand two hundred and fifty Reichsmarks – plus the interest on this amount on the account of Mr. Benno Neuburger at Dresdner Bank, Ritter von Epp-Platz branch, account no. 65331
VII.
The entire costs of the establishment and the execution of the present Ur
0024
13
customer, including real estate transfer tax plus surcharge and certificate tax, are borne by the buyer alone.
The parties involved apply for the present document to be issued to: a) the married couple Josef and Katharina SIX jointly a copy b) the land registry and the government president one each
certified copy, c) the tax office, Mr. Benno Neuburger and the involved Goetz
together one unauthorized copy.
Any capital gains tax is to be borne by the buyer.
VIII. With regard to the payment obligations assumed, the buyers submit to immediate foreclosure from this deed in their entire property in such a way that the foreclosure against the respective owner of the property should be permitted.
As a husband, Mr. Josef Six grants the marital approval to the declarations of his wife Katharine Six and tolerates the immediate foreclosure on the property brought in by his wife,
of residential areas. 2) on the capital gains tax provisions. 3) on the real liability of the kafufgrundstueck for any
Arrears on Ilypothekenzinsen and public charges, 4) on the veradnung over the employment of the Jewish property, 5) on the fact that the regulations over the prohibition of price
increases also relate to land, 6) to the notarization obligation of all contractual agreements and 7) that the property is only transferred to the buyer with the entry in the land register, that this entry only after all costs have been paid, the receipt of the tax clearance certificate and approval of the President of the Government. At the request of the representative of the gallery owner, the buyers assure that they have the provisional imperial civil rights in accordance with the legal regulations, further that they do not have any agreements or special agreements in any form with Jews or in favor of the property acquired with this contract, its exploitation or use have met by Jews and will not meet them. The buyers are aware that a false insurance or non-compliance can have consequences in the future, which may lead to the expropriation of the property with the strictest punishment. The buyers undertake, when taking over the property, neither to endanger nor to destroy Aryan existences located on the property, read out by the notary’s representative, approved by the parties involved and personally signed.
Benno Israel Neuburger little girl Sara Goetz Thekla Sara Goetz Nathan Goetz
0025
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
U.S. ARMY APO 407-A / Muehlbaurstr. 8 / IV.
Tedergutmachungsbc105.1 in.com
Munich, November 20th, 50 Fingo 2 NOV. 1950
No.
AZ: IM – 799 (Please specify) To the reparations committee – Upper Bavaria –
JR 69 Munich Arcisstr. 11 / II.
Dr M / BB 7471
HT
In the case of JR 69 regarding the property in Untermenzing, Pl.No.:331, formerly NEUBURGER Goetz, now: SIX Josef and Katharina, the objection period expired on 10.10.50 without any objection from the respondents. The contradiction of those involved, City of Munich, does not work in favor of the person liable for reimbursement, but only has the effect that the question of the load limit is disputed. Otherwise, in the event of a decision according to Article 62, Paragraph 1, we do not value the cancellation of the rights of the City of Munich in Section II and III of the Land Register. We therefore request that a decision in accordance with Art. 62, Paragraph 1, be issued in this sense:
Mums
Dr. E. Me tlg er Director, JRS O Munich.
0026
Again
bez 05b .: 16 “, JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE
Eriang. – 1st WRZ. 1951 APO 407-A
U.S. ARMY Mue hlbaurstr. 8, IV
WVR1691
Munich, February 12, 1951. Dr. Ed / Ro AZ: I / M 799
IR Gg.
To the reparations office I – Upper Bavaria – Muenchen 2 Arcisstr, 117 II
Subject: Refund JRSO (Neuburger, Goetz).). Six Josef
–
In the above matter you have agreed to our application in accordance with Art. 62 of the MRG. 59 wanting to give in as soon as possible. We ask for a resolution.
JRSO MWICH ALEGJOKALL OFFICE Dr. E. Mezger, director,
0027
CITY COUNCIL OF THE STATE CAPITAL MUNICH Unit 10 – Legal Department
Address: Munich City Council, Section 10 – RA
Long distance call
Office hours high-rise, Blumenstrasse 28 b
4566 / … 215
Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri
Room no. 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. To the
-512) Reparation Authority I.
Postal checking account of the Stadthauptkasse: Munich No. 115
Bank and savings bank accounts of Upper Bavaria
City main office:
State Central Bank of Bavaria No. 6/165 Reparations Bayerische Staatsbank No. 40115
Bayerische Gemeindebank Nr. 1115 Mü n ch balode Obb. Munich Bädt. Sparkasse No. 3000 *
Kreissparkasse No. 54 500 Arcisstras fiestas: – JUNE 8, 1951
Bayer. Hypoth. And exchange bank No. 400 248 Bayerische Vereinsbank No. 207 620 Sayerische Creditbank No. 31 232
Sayerische Bank for trade and industry del
No. 5894 Hankhaus Merck, Finck & Co., No. 2119 Sankhaus Seiler & Co., No. 18 518 Bank f. Wirtsch. U. Arb. A.-G. No. 33 333
Your sign your message from
Our signs
Munich, Az, JR Ia 69
R 347 / RA.Sa. 4.6.51. REFERENCE:
IRSO for Benno Neuburger and others /. Josef and Katharina si X, Mü.-Allach for reimbursement of Flst.Nr. 331 Gem. Untermenzing.
With reference to our objection dated 9/8/50, we, as the mortgagee, ask for notification of the status of the proceedings.
Dr. Heinz Sauter municipal senior legal councilor
0028
June 11, 1951
JR Ia 69
MRG 59 – JRSO as follow-up org. Article 10.11 MRG 59 for Benno Neuburger
Klara Götz and others o). Six Josef and Katharina there. Inquiry from June 4, 1951 Zch.R 347 / RA Sa.
The specified procedure has not yet been completed. The respondents have not yet commented on the reimbursement claim.
I.V.
(Ma ir)
To the City Council of the City of Munich – Ref.lo – Legal Dept. Munich, high-rise
gas hr am
June 11, 1951 from l. ani ………
0029
Compensation authority Olb .: Munich
howed! Basement. 1951 To the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria
August 21, 1951. Munich Arcisstr. 1! 7II
AL
Subject: JR 69; JRSO
/
Josef and Katharina Six Mlinchen-Allach, Lippertstr. 11
I raise a claim against the reimbursement notification sent to me and my wife by the JRSO
Contradiction
I paid the purchase price for the property in cash to the account indicated to me at the time. The sellers were able to fully dispose of the purchase price. The property was offered to me for sale by Mr. Neuburger and the Götz siblings. Why do I only lodge an objection today, because I was of the opinion – I understand nothing at all about legal matters – that the property will be taken from me again. that I have to publish it again and therefore a contradiction – as someone told me – was pointless.
I ask the reparation authority of Upper Bavaria to set a negotiation date for a possible settlement of the matter. I and my wife would be happy to keep the property and, in an accommodating manner, make an additional payment, but without recognizing a legal obligation, because the property was purchased without compulsion and because, as I mentioned above, the sellers were able to fully dispose of the purchase price.
Sincerely
di limim communicated to Formlos
To sowe wg si 22 Aug 1951 W.9.51 official deed of office A,
the reimbursement authority Oberhaveri
Sise Zooeps
22.8.
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0030
ReparationUCCESSOR ORGANIZAT ‘Authority Obb., Munich
JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATIB
MUNICH REGIONAL OFFICE MOHLBAURSTRASSE 8 / 1V. TELEPHONE 4416 22 – 44531
Encounter. 3rd SEP. 1951
DATOR
To the reparation authority I-Upper Bavaria
Mayenchen, August 31, 1951 Dr.H./Str. Ref. I / M – 799
Munich Arcisstr. 11
Re: JR 69, (Neuburger, Goetz) IRSO
Six
Josef and Katharina
Refund.
In the above matter is a notice of opposition
of the opponent within the prescribed period
not received. We therefore wrote to you in letter v. November 20 and 28 1950, as well as with letter v. 12.2.51 asked for a resolution in accordance with Article 62 MRG 59.
Our request has not yet been granted
ben, however, we became a contradiction script.
sentence dated v. 21.8.51, now from the WB
represents.
We allow ourselves to state that we do not take note of this contradiction, and on the
the i there
for
.
Resolutions in accordance with Article 62 continue to exist
B.
measure. We now ask for prompt processing.
TRSO, REGIONAL, OFFICE MUNICH I.A. Dr Kurt Hagel Haar
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
0031
Reparation Authority I
Upper Bavaria Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 / III
Call number: 20954, 270 AZ. JR. Yes 69
V er for & ung
.
In terms of JRSO as the successor organ. Article 10.11 MRG 59 for Benno Neuburger, Goetz Klara, Thekla, Nathan. And .0tta …
against Ward Josef Six and Katharina Six, Munich-Allach, Lippertstrasse 11
Meeting
determined – ver d. Reparation Authority – {xxOTXXXXGüteausausschussxdoxWB.XXXXorxdxxindividual member)
on … Dienstee …._, the …: November 1951 ..
… 12: 0 … a.m., room ..3.5 / .111
to be loaded are: .1 .. JRSO, Munich, Mühlbaurstr: 8 / IV …..
.?: Josef. $ IzMünchen-Allach, Lippertstr: 11 …… .3. .Katharina .Six, Munich-471ach, Linnertstr.11 .. .4. City Councilor of the City of Munich, Munich,
skyscraper
‘d
OOOOO
6th
0
0
O O OOOOO
3rd
1.)
Zwacks delivery with confirmation of receipt
… 15.10.
1951
manes
W374) For delivery to the post office
Oct 17, 1951
The document Her Wiedergut
Employment Office
d Oberhaver
0032 – 0039. Forms
0040
22nd
The restitution authority makes the following determinations:
Claims for the Jewish persecuted Benno Neuburger, Klärchen Goetz, Nathan Goetz, Otto Goetz,
Thekla Goetz registered.
Comparison: 1.) The JRSO agrees that the respondents
the property plan no. 331, Stgmde Unters, acquired by the persecuted Jews with a contract of sale dated June 23, 1939
menzing remains. 2.) Compensation for all reimbursement claims is due to the
of the aforementioned property, the respondents undertake to pay the JRSO the amount of
2000 DM (mostly / two thousand German marks) namely
1,000 DM by December 31, 1951 at the latest, the remaining 1,000 DM in 20 equal monthly installments of DM 50 each beginning on February 1, 1952 to the JRSO comparison account at Bayerische Diskontobank München, account no. Pay 11874
If the respondents are in arrears for more than 10 days, the entire remaining amount is due for payment. The respondent Josef Six grants his wife his solidarity consent to the declaration of commitment and obliges / himself to tolerate the foreclosure of the property brought in. The respondents are entitled to repay the damaged part amounts early.
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
0041
3.) The IRSO declares that it is solely authorized and guarantees that there are no other authorized persons. It undertakes, as a precautionary measure, to exempt the respondent from any claims by third parties due to the specified assets in the amount of the assets received. However, the respondents have to notify the IRSO immediately of such claims.
to pay off.
5.) The parties apply for the procedure to be free of charge. In addition, the representation and other extrajudicial costs against each other are canceled.
6.) This means that all mutual claims according to MRG 59 or according to civil law from the registration of the IRSO of October 9, 1948 and the registration amendment of July 26, 1950
compensated. 7.) The JRSO reserves the right to make the above comparison
Submission of a pleading to the reparations authority I to be revoked by 11/30/1951.
Read out, approved and signed.
Josef Sise Mathic you
for IRSO IH. Hage
Mans
Vrollmer
0042 – 0044 Little text
0045
Redress authority
Munich
the … 5. December. ….. 1951
Release Reg. No. Isa
New address: Ref .: JR. Ia 69
Munich 22, Thierschstr. 17 Ser.-No .:
Ruf-No .: 20354, 27666 Release order The restitution procedure Jewish Restitution Successor Organization Inc. (JRSO) New York / USA as the successor organization
Applicant represented by Regional Office, Munich Mühlbaurstrasse 8 / IV against S. i … Josef and Katharina … Munich-Allachgertstr. 1 Respondent represented by is concluded. The settlement took place on … 6 … 1.1.1.951 … by …. Ve 8 1 calibrated
before the reparation authority I Upper Bavaria, Munich
Reference is made to the attached certified copy of the minutes.
Any security measures are to be lifted. Any existing = the trust account is to be paid out to the respondent.
(In the case of a partial settlement, partial waiver or partial decision, the property affected by the settlement or waiver and the related content of the settlement must be precisely specified. The same applies to extensive objects; otherwise, a key word reproduction of the settlement or the decision and a brief statement of the property that is to be released sufficient.)
any / The release is due to … the respondents Josef and Katharina ix
… Munich-Allach … Lippertstrasse 11 ..
to effect
According to the instructions of the military government, reports on the implementation must be reported for reporting purposes.
Branch office of the Bayer. State Office for Property Administration and reparation
in Munich – city
Blumenstrasse 31 2. Andas
Bayer. State Office for Property Administration and reparation Dept. II
Munich
Prinzregentenpl. 16 from I am
(S.)
(Rubber stamp)
COMPLETECTOS Ngos hram
Form WB 11 (released from the UK) 5000 6.51 Manz AG.
0046
Reparation Authority I Upper Bavaria (WB I)
Munich, December 5, 1951 Thierschstr. 17
Tel. 20354, 27666. AZ .: JR Ia 69
Object: plot of land (Hartacker) to 0.8 ha (to be stated in response)
Mlinchen, Moosacherstrasse Betr. : MRG 59; refund procedure here
The reparation authority of Upper Bavaria approves and hereby applies for the deletion of the land register for Untermenzing
Volume 48 / Page 501 Sheet 1907 Section II No. Plan No. 3317 in favor of a registered refund note. A notification of completion is requested. ‘ To the local court
Day Land Registry
When in linchen
written on
expired, on …….
wa
0047
Dept. of land register
The subject and file number must be given for all information
January 23
Munich 35 den
195
Justice building at Prielmayerstraße 5
hogy sörda Obb., 14 Anchon Subject:
imgma. 26 JAN. 1952
Property Hs no.
al
pimated address. J & Ia 69
Land register plan no. 531 / Untermenzing
The reimbursement claim was deleted today due to a cancellation permit dated December 5, 1951 in the land register for Untermenzing Volume 48 sheet 1907 page 501 …
certified non-compulsory applic.
2000 7th 51st, Wu.
0048 – 0050 Little text
0051
1948 –
To the
Josef Frei Real Estate – Mortgages –
House management Munich 2 Karlsplatz, Tel .:
kilinchen, the -25. May
89843 Central Registration Office,
C86600
Bad near 1 m
via the Münch en-Staat branch
IR 69
Notification required according to Act No. 59 of the MEF excitation in connection with AVO No. 2 property plan No. 331 at Moosacherstr. 74-3200-63.
Part A
Ize i Josef 2. Munich 2 3. Karlsplatz 8/1 See point 3
Numbers 5, 6 and 7 are omitted.
feil B
Tello
Not known. 24. RM 2,500.
Not known.
Not known. 27. Not known, 28. Not applicable.
No. 29 with No. 34 is not applicable.
26th
Trustee
State Archives Munich
WB I JR 69
WB_IN_3068_0042
II.
The applicants assure that the assets dealt with in this settlement do not come from funds that are the subject of an assignment pursuant to Article 44 (3) REG. Furthermore, the applicants assure that they have not yet asserted any other claims for reimbursement for these assets and have not received any benefits under the compensation laws. Regarding the above declarations, the applicants expressly authorize the German Reich to obtain information from all relevant authorities.
III.
The fulfillment of the obligations under Section I by the Federal Republic of Germany is based on the provisions of the BRÜG of July 19, 1957.
Words by
IV
Each party shall bear the costs and expenses incurred on its side.
rael m5M OS
V
All claims relating to the assets listed in this Settlement are hereby settled under the Restitution Laws.
VI.
The parties reserve the right to revoke this settlement by means of a written statement which is to be
March 15, 1961
should have been received by the WB I office.
AM Banh
This settlement was dictated in the presence of the party representatives and approved by them. The Tartei representatives decided not to have it read out and signed by them.
In Thinan 1.) Mr. RA Dr.Georg 0 t t
Munich 2, Marsstrasse 21/IV 2.) Upper Finance Directorate Munich Munich 2, Meiserstrasse 9
To office To 5608-B III 950/3- E 12/5
for the final treatment Rü 5939) Galau, h Orbphorften wdivided.
|- March 2, 1961
German originals