Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-02-10

An Interesting Land Suit.


+ GEORGE RANDOLPH VS.. THE LuNGDALE
IRON COMPANY.
This case was ended by the decision OF
the Court of Appeals rendered IN Rich
mond few days ago, affirming the decis-
ion of Judge Mclaughlin made in 1854.
The suit was an action Of eJectment
brought by the Longdale Company against
George Randolph In 1881. in the Circuit
Cour5 of Bath. whence it was removed to
the Circuit Court Of Rockbridge.
The matter IN dispute was an interlock
between two tracts of mountain land. each
containing about 10000 acres, one situa-
ted in Bath county, and granted by the
Componw wealth to Joseph Grub, Octo-
Ter Is. 1895, the other lying mainly
in Rockbridge and granted to John Bar
clay by the Commonwealth, March 18th,
1906 Jasper Cope, the father-in-law OF
Randolph. acquired the Grub land about
the year 1880, and by his will left it to
Randolph IN trust for the wife and chill
dren of the latter.
John Barclays heirs sold tho Barclay
land to Jordaps Il Irvine about 1926 or
1927, and they built upon it and operated
for many years charcoal iron furnace,
known as the Lucy Selma Furnace. After
the war, this property was bought by the
LoDgdale Iron Co., which erected in the
place of the old furnace two fine furnaces
of large capacity, with all the modern i'm.
provements.
The boundaries of these large and ada
cent tracts of land, as is usually the case
with old surveys of wild lands, were not
we'll defined, or If well defined, were not
well known.
In 1881 or 1882, Jasper Cope. then the
owner of the Grub land, applied to the
County Court of Bath county for an order
to allow him to "re survey" this tract.
The law under which he made application :.
provides for re-surve7s of single tracts OF
land IN order to correct the boundaries,
and also for Inclusive surveys" by which
several tracts are consolidated into one.
Whether this was ''re-survey" of the
Grub land merely, or an ''incluslye" sur
vey by which new territory was to be
taken in, was one of the questions in the
case.
At any rate the new survey was made,
and as it is claimed. land not in the origi-
nal Grub survey was taken in. 1t was
no where specially stated in any of the
proceedings connected with this new sur
vey that notice of 1t was given to Jordans
tl,o of t,o 70 rflfo VI
land, at the time it was made.
About the year 1881, Randolph opened
an ore bank on part of the land covered
by the new survey, and the Longdale Iron
Company notified him that he was at
work on their land-the Barclay land
and that he must quit. Randolph not
needing this notice, the Longdale Compa-
ny promptly brought suit against him.
This brought up for consideration
whether the iron ore bank was On the
original Grubb survey. and if not, whether
it was within the boundaries Of the Bar
clay patent; it was clearly within the lines
of the new survey made under the direc-
ton of Cope, as above stated.
limits of the Barclay patent properly To-
Gated; but claimed that if it was, the lines
Of the new Cope patent since the date of
that patent in 1885, must under the law
of inclusive surveys or re-surveys, be TAX
en- to be the true lines of the Grub sur
vey, and that, as the Grub was older
than the Barclay, he was entitled to the
ore bank.
Alexander Campbell, Edward McLaugh-
lin, A. D. Trotter. A. M. Lusk and John
A. MEG uffin. at different times, made sur
veys of the Barclay land.
Joel Walker, McGuffin and Lusk sur
veyed the Grub land, and Samuel Lewis,
McGuffin and Lusk all ran the Cope sur
vey. There was little or no doubt as to
the true lines of the new or inclusive sur
vey, but there was much controversy as
to the proper location Of the Grub and
| Barclay patents.
| The variation Of the magnetic needle
from time to time was also an interesting
subject of inquiry.
A question Of law much discussed was
the legal operation and erect OF q Te-sur-
vey or an inclusive survey as to the lands
embraced in them and also as to co-ter-
minous lands.
But, as already stated. the decision both
in the Circuit Court of Rockbridge and in
the Court of Appeals, was in favor of the
Longdale Iron Company as owner of the
Barclay land.
The Longdale Iron Company was rep
resented in both courts by Messrs. Elder
Il Nelson of Stanton, and Mr.. r. L. Par
, IRISH of Covington; Mr.. Randolph was rep.
resented by Capt. George M. Cochran, Jr.,
of Stanton, and Col. Edmund Pendleton
of Lexington.