Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-02-15
For the Possession Of Piece of
Property in the Heart Of Pitts
burg's Business District.
AN ALMOST FORGOTTEN LAW SUIT
Resurrected By Sale to a Woman Who
Insisted Upon Having a Clear
Title Furnished Her.
EMINENT LAWYERS, LONG SINCE DEAD,


There Isl law suit in Common Pleas
Court No. that not only eclipses, in regard
to age. the one reported lately from New
York City, where the parties in interest, ad-
vocates, etc., had died and left the suit in
complete, but beside which Jarndyce versus
Jarndyce reads like plain, everyday legal
procrastination.
The trouble began in 1912, the year the
historian of Jarndyce versus Jarndyce first
visited the United States, and it has just
been revived after long periods of coma
and resuscitstion, Attorney John j.
Mitchell filing an affidavit of defense on be-
half of Nora E. Mehan, who purchased of
the heirs OF Peter Rattigan the property on
the corner OF Grant street and Virgin alley.
The affidavit sets up flaw in title caused
BY what has been decided is a mortgage
given by Peter Rattigan and Patrick Cum
ningham to Right Rev. Michael O'Connor,
Bishop of this diocese, 40 years ago and
later.
Origin Of a Long Drawn-out Suit
Rattigan & Cunningham were coutrac-
tors who built the old Episcopal residence
of Bishop O'Connor. They were unable to
settle their bills, and the Bishop in 1S43 ss-
sumed them. He took the property in ques-
tion, they giving deed for it, but having a
certain written instrument by which they,
Rattigau & Cunningham, could get it
back by payment of $1,000, with interest,
and this is, under ruling of the Supreme
Court once upon a time, q mortgage.
Rattigan & Cunningham never COM
piled with the agreement, but the Bishop
was lenient, and most people, even some of
those interested, in time forgot that there
was a controversy, and the property has re-
maiued in the possession of the Rsttigan
family until lately, when they sold it to
Mrs. Mehan, who paid part and gave
purchase money mortgage for the re-
mainder. When she proposed to lift the
mortgage, she got Mr.. Mitchell to examine
the title, and this examination resurrected
the whole matter, so far as it can be found,
though the record of some of the proceed
ings in the case seem to have been lost be-
yond all hope of recovery.
The original counsel in the case were c.
Shaler & Co. and J. n. McLowry for
Bishop O'Connor, John Barton for Ratti-
gan, and Matthew Stewart for Owen Kelley,
administrator of the estate of Patrick Gun
ningham. The &C.," in the Shaler firm
was Edwin NJ. Stanton, Secretary of War
under Lincoln and g lawyer named
Umbstetter.
All of Them Asleep With Their Fathers.
sit is noteworthy not only that all these
men sleep with their fathers, but also Judge
Hampton, who presided, and Thomas Mac
rlo ir,@ he
generation later. Judge Williams, who
also took some part, has been dead several
years.
Under the ruling of the Supreme Court,
although the instrument given by Rattigan
& Cunningham was q mortgage, it was de-
cided that they could only be dispossessed
by an action in ejectment.
The matter drifted along until 1854 when
il seems to have been decided that sufficient
grace had been given Rattigan & Cunning
ham, and the action in ejectment was
brought against them, and a verdict for
plaintiff for something more than twice the
original amount rendered in February, 1856.
The discussion then slept for three years,
and in 1859 there was further legal shindy.
On April s of that year a rule on defend
ants to. plead, answer or demur was
granted, returnable the first Monday of
May, 1859. On April %, demurrer and
answer were filed. Alter the regular legal
teetering the controversy went upon the
equity list 1t was continued October 10,
1860, and the demurrer overruled June 13,
1861. A week later replication was filed,
and the matter was referred to Thomas Mac
Connell, as master to examine and report.
The matter rested during the War OF the
Rebellion, but the records show that on the
Oath of August, 1866, the bill as to Owen
o6m of i0lr
ham, was taken pro confesso, in default of
answer or demurrer, and then there is an
other gap of four years, for on April 10,
1869, the record is resumed, and it shows
that on that date the death of Peter Rattigau
was suggested, and an order made that his
Administrative, Ann Rattigan, be substi-
tuted as party defendant in his stead.
Resurrected After a Long Burial.
The controversy then dropped, and for
aught anyone knows might have remained
IN its tomb, to be resurrected on the
Great Day, with Bishop O'Connor and
Judges Hampton and Williams, and all the
eminent counsel in the case, had it not been
that the Rattigan heirs sold to Mrs. Mehan,
who prudently wanted to know something
about her title. The record shows nothing
further save that from time to time substitu-
tions of new Bishops to fill the gaps made
were suggested and ordered. Bishop Do
menec took the place of Bishop O'Connor;
Bishop Tuigg that of Bishop Domenec, and,
finally, Rt. Rev. Richard Phelan, the pres
ent Bishop, at the suggestion of Attorney c.
T. McKenna, succeeded Bishop Tuigg.
Here is gap of Is wears in which there was
no progress, only the succession of Bishops
management keeping it alive.
Meantime, Master MacConnell died. and
all the voluminous testimony supposed BY
some people 70 have been taken by him
lost. His sen, Attorney John G. Macon
nell, can remember of the case attracting
considerable attention when he was a boy,
but he cannot give any clue to the missing
testimony.
1t is suggested that it may be necessary to
appoint a new master, who must hunt up
the evidence taken by MacConnell, If there
is any. The court has ruled that Mr..
Mitchell's affidavit of defense is sufficient
excuse for Mrs. Mehan to refuse payment
of the mortgage she gave to the Rattigan
heirs, and it is q years since the con-
troversialists took their last rest.
More Costs Than Can Be Calculated.
The suggestion of interest on that 81, 200
mortgage, running for 48 years. with court
costs, counsel fees, etc., is enough to send q
chill up the backs OF those still interested,
but the property in dispute is now q very
valuable one.
Mrs. Mehan purchased the property in
1886, and the pendency of the old suit is the
bar to recovery on the mortgage given by her.
A call was made on Attorney John G.
MacConnell, but he stated that though his
boyish "reminiscences on the subject are very
pleasant, and he beanie impressed with the
conviction that Bishop O'Connor was not
onlr q GREAT man but one of the most enur.