Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-05-22
OUR MOUNTAIN LANDS.
The BewiIderIng Conflict OF Titles on
WaIden's Ridge.

NhdltdnOOSa IliltsJ May -.
A lawsuit has been on trial in the Cir
cult Court of this county, for several days,
which is important, not so much on ac-
count of the value Of the interests involved,
as it is an Illustration of the conflict Of
titles to the mountain lands of East Ten
nessee.
The suit was brought in 1873 by the
East Tennessee Mining and Manufacturing
Company against T. r. Stanley, Charles
Stanley, George Brown, o. S. Green, Jack
Rice, w. f. Vandergriff, William Fouts,
Zack Hendricks, j. r. WOOdbead, James
SqUires and others.
The declaration field Dec. 81, 1873,
claims the possession Of a certain tract of
land:
Beginning at stake on the north bank of
Tennessee river at the mouth Of Suck
creek, thence up Suck creek north 20 degs.,
east along the line of Marion and Hamil-
ton counties twelve hundred and eighty
poles to two black oaks on the top of Wal
den's Ridge, thence south 20 degs., east 500
poles TO a stake. Thence south 20 degs.
east 100 poles TO stake on the bank Of the
Tennessee river, thence down the meanderS
of the river to the beginning, containing
some 5000 acres more or less, of which the
plaintiff was possessed, claiming in fee on
the first day of January, 1867, and, after
such possession accrued, the defendants on
the first day of August, 1867, entered there
upon and unlawfully withheld and detained
the same, together with 81, 900 due for the
detention thereof.
GAsKILL & BURT, Attorneys.
Defendants Brown, Green, VANDERBILT,
Forrest, Brien, Squires and Hendricks,
plead not guilty of unlawfully OBTAINING
the premises claimed by the plaintiff. They
also set up their individual claims and
titles TO the possession of the lands Occu-
pied by them. They further plead the
statute OF limitation, and that they had
held adverse possession by grant, convey
ance, devise, or other assurance Of title, fOT
more than seven years next preceding the
bringing Of plaintiffs suit. They further
plead that the plaintiff had ceased to use
and exercise its franchise for more than five
years before the suit was brought, and has
no authority to maintain its suit against
the defendants.
The plaintiffs claim, under deed dated
April -, 1850, from William 4. Bilbo, NeilI
S. Brown, John Baird, Fountain f. Pitts,
John Campbell, George w. House, and a.
q. p. Nicholson, to the East Tennessee
Mining aud Manufacturing Company, of
g9,334 acres in Hamilton and Marion coUn-
ties, for $4,000, in which the tract now
claimed is described as:
One tract containing 5000 acres lying on
Suck creek and Tennessee river, granted by
the State Of Tennessee to Mathew Stephen
son by grant y ,jG9, dated 22d November,
1887.
The East Tennessee Mining and Manu-
featuring Company was chartered 9th of
February, 1850, and was composed Of the
parties mentioned in the deed as transfer
rinEthe property, together with some Others.
Ex-GOv. NELL 5. Brown is now its Presi-
dent. The company built and operated a
saw-mill near Middle creek, about half a
mile this side Of Suck creek, between 1852
and 1854, and afterwards sold the mill and
about 200 acres of land to a man named
Sweeney.
The land was entered by Stump, the
grant issued TO Stephenson, and by him con-
| Veyed to BilbO. Stanley claims under a
grant, No. 26,651, to Daniel Sively, dated
| 10th Of April, 1919, for 5000 acres, which,
| on the map of the land, Overlaps the
Stephenson grant, taking in about five
sixths Of il.
The other defendants trace their title to
| the Sively grant and to grant No 29,O25,
dated 10Th Of February, 1851, OF 5000 acres,
/ to James &. Conner, Levi Green and John
| A. Minis; also to grant No. 2G,64T, TO
| John 4. MINIS and Alfred Rogers, as
signee Of Elisha Rogers, for 1000 acres,
dated March, 1919.
These grants overlap the Matthew
Stephenson grant about 500 acres, and also
overlap the Siyely grant.
The map showing the different surveys
and grants Of the land in controversy re-
sembles and is about as easy of cOmprehen-
| sion as one of the pattern sheets issued
with HdrpCT'S BGzGT. The lines cross and
recrOss in all directions, and parts of the
| land are covered by all four of the grants
/ in question. The present value OF the land
claimed by the plaintiffs is small, less than
a dollar an acre on an average, but it may
at some time become valuable by reason OF
| the coal beds which it contains.
The conflict of titles evidenced in the
pleadings is only fair illustration of the
| condition Of nearly all the mountain land
| in East Tennessee. In fact there are many
| tracts whose ownership is far more doubt
| full than that of this land. An effort was
made two years ago to have some legisla-
/ ton to quiet the titles TO this mountain
land, upon the development of whose coal
and ore beds depends the future prosperity
of the country, and we believe a commits
| sion was appointed to devise some plan to
remedy the existing evils, but nothing has
| been done.