Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-30
FIGHT ABOUT A FARM.
An Interesting Case Being Argued
in the Supreme Court.
CASES IN CRIMINAL BRANCHES.
A SOutbsider Who Tried Hard to Save His
Goods From Sale.
WHAT is TRANSFERRING IN THE COURTS

An interesting case was argued in the
Supreme Court yesterday, in which Jacob
Cable, of Ross township, was appellant, and
Henry C. Cable and Sarah J. McGraw ap-
pellees Attorneys George ID. Riddle
for appellant, and George H. Quail
and Bruce & Shields for appellees
1t is interesting, not only on account of the
principle involved, but also on account of
the family being one on the Northside eS-
listing since time to which the mind of man
runneth not contrary. Its history is as fol-
lows:
Henry Cable, the paternal grandfather of
Jacob, patented a farm from the Common
wealth. He devised part thereof TO Will
lam Cable. the father of Jacob. In
1S43 William made a deed of his
share to Jacob and his brother William.
The deed was fee simple, so Jacobs attor-
news contend, save that the grantor reserved
the right to live on the farm and use it
during his life. He did so until a year
previous to the time of bringing this suit.
William, Jacobs brother, died without
issue and intestate leaving Jacob sole heir
of their father, William Cable Now here
the pinch comes in.
ANOTHER CLAIM TO THE LAND.
Henry c. Cable, cousin of Jacob and
Sarah j. McGraw, set up a claim to the
property based on a subsequent deed made
in 1888. Just 10 years after the first. The
appellant claims that the last deed was
made when the old man did not know what
he was doing Appellees claim that the
first conveyance was not deed but VIII
and revocable by the testator, while Jacobs
contention is that the first conveyance was
a fee simple, subject as before stated to his
use and occupancy for life, and they never
moved to dispossess the appellees until
after the old man S death.
An argument was heard in the case of the
Latin & Rand Powder Company VS. the
Youghiogheny Coal Company appealed by
the defendants from Common Pleas No. /.
The suit was to recover from the individual
members of the co-partnership for powder
sold TO the company which afterwards
failed.
The appeal of Isabella c. Sergeant from
the Common Pleas No. / was argued. The
case was an action against the city of Pitts
burg for damages for injury to property
caused by the opening of Negley avenue.
An argument was heard in the case of
Thomas Carson VS. the Federal Street and
Pleasant Valley Railway Company ap-
pealed by the defendant from Common
Pleas No ?. The case wac an action for
damages for injuries to team of the plain
tiff, caused by car running into ii.
SEVERAL OTHER ARGUMENTS.
An argument was heard on the appeal of
Charles Klopfer from Common Pleas No. l.
The case was an action against Klopfer by
j. r. Henry and wife for damages for in
iuries TO Mrs. Henry, who was knocked
down by a runaway team of Klopfer's.
An argument was heard in the case of A.
w. F. Banck VS. J. NJ. Swan and wife,
appealed by the defendant from Common
Pleas No. .. The case was an action grow
ing out of the sale of some land.
An argument was heard in the case of the
Fidelity Title and Trust Company, trustees
Of the estate of Joseph Patterson, VS. the
Peoples Natural Gas Company, appealed
by the defendant from Common Pleas No.
1. The case was an action to recover for
insurance companies the amount paid as in
surance for damages caused by a natural gas
explosion at the Patterson block.
An argument was heard in the case of J.
S. Mcdonald VS. T. Ligett, appealed by the
defendant from Common Pleas No. l. The
case was an action on an oil and gas lease.
An argument was heard in the case of
John Reese VS. Jane Clark, appealed by the
defendant from Common Pleas No. 1. The
suit was for damages for injuries to Reese
bv some plates in the defendants works
falling on him.
W. A. Golden was admitted to practice
in the Supreme Court yesterday.