The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1877-12-14
FIFTY-SEvEN YEARS OF LITI-
CATION

- ohNAShh ShSOB OaO ihNOSN sAos
reminds the spectator, of Jsrndyce VS.,
Jarndyce, was decided by the Supreme
Court day before yesterday. AS the
matter has been before various tribunals
for ffty-seven years, it cannot be
without interest to the general public.
In the year 1897, John James purchased
of Joseph Spencer tract of land con-
tsining sbeut 700 acres, on Situsell creek
in Wood county, Va. james died intes-
tate in 1900, leaving nine children, two
of whom also died intestate shortly after
wards. In 1903 Esther, one OF the dsugh-
ters, married John Gillespie, and the same
year Mr.. and Mrs. Gillespie sold to the
latter's brother, John James, all
their interest in the estate
of the deceased John James, This sale
is evidenced by sn agreement signed by
John Gillespie and wife, and witnessed
by three persons. but never scknOwl-
edged for recordstion by those who gave
it. When this agreement or deed WAS
given, John Gillespie was not quite
eighteen years of age. In 1882 young
James sold his interest in the estate to
q. P. Bailey, who claims to have also
bought the interest of sll the
other heirs at the same time
In 1920 Joseph Spencer sued James heirs
for 81 COO, saying 1t was balance due
him for the land bought by James.
After twenty-six years of litigation the
Circuit Court of w ood county dismissed
the bill.
About 1888 John James, Jr., sued g..
p. Bailey to vacate the sale of the prop
erty or to compel Bailey to pay for 1t.
Bailey replied that he would not pay, as
the title to the portion purchased
by James from John Gillespie
WAS not good one. Twenty
one years after this the Court OF Appeals
of Virginia decided that Bailey must
pay the claim. David Rowell, creditor
of Simeon James, one of the children of
John james, sr., brought suit against
Bailey, claiming that he held illegally
that part of the estate which belonged to
Simeon, who died IN 1888. For fourteen
years this quarrel was kept up and then
it was dismissed from court by conse mt
of both parties. In June, 1888, John
Gillespie and wife brought suit against
q. z. Bailey, to vacate the agree
ment they had given, claiming
that at the time il was given John
Gillespie was sn infant and Esther u
married woman, and asking that their
one-seventh of the property might be re.
turned. Bsiley's answer was that he had
bought the interest of all the heirs and
that the lapse of thirty years since the
agreement was given was bar to the
suit and also that if such claim was
allowed them, they should return the
money (sS0) with inter est which he
paid them.
The Circuit Court of Wood
county on the 5th OF October, 1869, de-
creed that Esther Gillespie was entitled
her one-sevenLh of>the state, and ordered
that it should be surveyed. An appeal
was taken on writ of error, and after
eight years more of weary waiting the
Supreme Court has decided that the de-
cree of October 5, 1869, be affirmed, and
that Gillespie and wife must recove
their costs in the case and thirty dollars
damages.
TIE opinion in the case, which is very
voluminous and learned was delivered by
Judge Green and concurred in by Judges
Moore, Raymond and johnson. Thou
sands of dollars were spent in this case
by both sides, and the result is rs far rs
we know, the usual one. Those who
brought the case into court are nearly all
dead, their property is about eaten up to
pay costs, etc, and the decision is like
one in Punch, "Gentlemen, the oysters
was very fine one and the court
awards you each she'll