The Weston Democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1875-current, 1878-11-16
OUR LAND LAWS.
Some Rcflccttons-Suggested By tho
Verdict In the U. s. District Court
Last Week.

they have been hitherto claiming anC
regarding as their own.
This is particularly the ease in vieV
| Of tho verdict 10 tho action Of Wood
against Armintrout and others tried il
tho United States District Court ut thi!
place last week. By verdict in thi!
case, a verdict to which tho jury va!
driven by tho repeated instructions o
tho Judge presiding at tho trial, some
of tho best citizens Of Gilmgr and Brax.
ton counties will, if u new trial be not
granted, be driven from the possession
Of tho lands to which they and Their
legal advisers, some Of them among the
best land lawyers in the State, thought
the title beyond question. Some oi
the defendants had held possession Of
their lauds under paper title for more
than twenty years before suit vas
brought-tho Statute Of limitations
only requiring, with the time excepted
during the war, thirteen years, ten
months and fourteen days. The yer.
dict was rendered upon what We claim
was forced construction Of tho acts Of
the party, Henry D. Middleton, under
whom tho plaintiffs claim. 1t was not
shown that Middleton ever had any
actual possession Of the land embraced
iu his dccd-somc fifty.six thousand
acres. All that he saw ever shown to
have done was to sell few, small par
cells to different persons, who took pos
session Of them by distinct metCs aud
bounds, thing which the court
admitted did not constitute possession
outside lines of tho whole survey. Yet
without any other evidence as to any
acts Of possession by Middleton, the
court instructed tho jury in such a
way as to inducc them to believe that
these acts Of Middleton amounted to
adverse possession aud coufned The
defendants to their actual enclosures Or
Improvements. Such q construction
or rather application Of the doctrine of
adverse possession was never before
heard Of in cur courts, and il such is
70 be the ruling, it is high time that
tho legislature Of this State should in.
Icrferc. Judge Baldwin held 10 the
leading caso Of TaylOr's dcvisees VS..
Burnside that the possession Of the
junior patents 10 q case whCrc the
senior pa,entea was not in possession
when the junior entered into possession
which was the fact in tho case tried
last week, was an custer Of tho senior
patentce to The whole extent Of the
land claimed by tho junior patCntcC.
This is maHifestly just, and it should
bc tho rule cvcn when the senior pat.
entec is in possession ofa part Of his
land outside the claim Of tho junio
grantee when tho latter enters, for tho
plain reason that if he who has the
better titlo stands by and permits
another to enter upon his land and
take and hold possession for tho timo
required by tho statute Of limitations
to ripcu the possession Of such other
into title ho ought not to complain !;
no has simply stood by and permitted
that for which he bad ample legal
remedy. 1t has been the policy Of leg.
islutiOn for years to protect tho actual
settler. tho man who tries to improve
the country by telling the forest and
digging the soil, and Judge Baldwin's
ruling 10 tho case mentioned together
with The shortening by the Legislature
from time 10 time Of tho statute oflim-
itatious have greatly couduccd to at
thin that desirable end. But as tue
Federal Court seems disposed to dis
regard these wholesome safeguards,
and rather TO favor the claimants Of
large traets of land as against the oC.
cupiers Of the soil, some other pOwOr
must b. looked to to protect tho more
meritoriOus holder.
The Legislature should without do.
lay pass au net declaring that the pos
SESSION of junior claimant shall work
IN custer Of tho possession Of q senior
cIaimaut to tho whole extent Of the
land for which tho junior has color or
title, unless tho senior has actual pos
session of some part Of tho land en-
bruced by the claim Of tho Junior, and il
necessary shorten the statute Of limita'