Evening journal., 1892-04-05
AN OLD CASE SETTLED.
Chancellor Saulsbury Says He Has The
Right to Think tho United States su.
preme Court Erred.

decision in case that is one OF the
Oldest and most perplexlng that has
been known in the annals of Del
aware Jurisprudence. 1t had its begin
ming iD March, 1929, and It's ending in
| March 1892 It was the case of Patrick
Mcguire vs. Amos Cole, sheriff Of Kent
county, and Nathaniel w. Davis OF this
/ city, administrator c. t a. d, b n.. of
William d. BoYles, deceased, bill in
Ohancery for an injunstio
James Pennewill. George V. Massey
and George w. Jones Of Dover were
solicitors for the complainant in the in
Junction, and Nathaniel w. Davis, admin
lstrator, and Deputy Attorney General
Thomas Davis, Of the New Castle bar,
were solicitors for the respondent
II was an order restraining the collec-
tion. of judgment given by order of the
orphans Court of Kent county, as the
widows share in the sale of the lands Of
William h. Boyles, in 1868. The amount
involved was 1904 22s with about twenty
i've years interest
the chancellor ordered the bill Of in
| junction dissolved, with COSTS and the
sheriff was instructed to collect the
| judgment,
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
| OnubI Will uhLoQ IL 1885,
James Tibbebt, Californian, under a
resduary clause in his will, decided his
real property in. Delaware, situated in
and about the town of Clayton, to James
I Whartenby of Philadelphia. This
land embraced all of the real estate upon
which Clayton now is, and much that
surrounds 1t, Several years after the will
was mads Tibbett died. The people In
and about Clayton paid no attention to
Tibbett's claim to the land and bought
and sold as II their was no Question of
title. Upon the death of Tibbett the
Philadelphian, hWhArtenby, laid claim to
the Clayton lands. He brought lsuit to
dispossess the owners of the land. This
action was taken in the Superior Court
of Kent county. The court decided that
the Philadelphia was not entitled o
the lands and that the occupants could
not be dispo ssessed.
From this decision an appeal was taken
to the Supreme Court Of the United
States. The Supreme Court reversed
the decision of the lower court and ruled
that he was the lawful owner of the
Clayton site and surroundings. In con-
sequence Of this decision the possessors
of the land had to pay Whartenby for
the land or relinquish 1t. The Philadel-
1
| to compromise the matter accepting from
TIE owners what would have been rea-
sonable assessment OF unimproved land.
He had, by law, a right to all improve.
ments.
Prior to this action a portion of this
land, which was held by William H.
Boyles, was sold by order of the Orphans
Court to pay debts Il was bought by
Patrick Mcguire, the well-known rail-
road man, and part owner OF the Smyrna
gas plant. Boyles's widow waived her
right of dover, aud Mcguire gave iudg-
ment for her third, and paid interest on
It to her until within a few years of her
death. About that time tbs Philadel-
phia claimant came along and made him
pay for the land again. He then refused
to any long pay interest on che Boyles
| Judgment for the widows third. Her
administrator fled a petition in the
Orphans Court requesting the court to
order Mcguire to pay the Judgment to
the Boyles heirs. No agreement was
reached because Judge Houston said it
was an important case, and he would not
hear It unless the chancellor sat with
him, and the chancellor said the same
thing Several hearings we're set, but
had to be declared of on this account
The new administrator then went into
the Superior Court, had the Judgment
received, it having been outiawed by
q lapse of over twenty years, and ex-
ecution was issued. It was placed In
the hands Of Sheriff Cole for service and
collection. Then it was that Maguire
obtained an order from Chancellor Sauls.
bury putting an estoppal upon Sheriff
Coles work
March %, 1892, was fixed as the dsy
! for hearing argument. 1t was very full
on both sides. Since the argument the
chancellor has decided that Mcguire must
pay the money, no matter If he did pav
the Philadelphia man.
THE SUPREME COURT ERRED
In passing upon the case he expressed
the opinion that the Supreme Court of
the United States erred in reversing the
Judgment of the Superior Court of Kent
county. Some surprise was manifested
that he should so express himself con-
cerning the highest tribunal of the
United States In reply to this. be
stated that he had his right to an opinion
in the matter He did not think the
Philadelphia man had any right to the
Clayton property as bequeathed by the
Californian
HIS NEXT REPORT READY
His decision in this case will cover
eighty-fve pages of his next Chaneery re-
port, and will be the last decision in It.
he was very anxious to have the Mcguire
case settled so that he could embody the
decision in the report, he considering it
very important one. The report is now
ready for the printer It will make the
sixth Chapcery volume and the second
one compiled by Chancellor Salisbury.
a Jealous Mans Razor.
While Charles Tomlinson was standing
at the corner Of Third and Washington