The Big Stone Gap post. [volume] (Big Stone Gap, Wise County, Va.) 1892-1928, 1893-04-20
Important Decision.

aSSV'N, "tV h"thpCi VI III Poitoh'
cases were finally determined. Among
those Of general interest were Carter's
Heirs VS.. Edwards, Goodloe Trustee,
vs.. Simpson and the Louisville and
Nashville r. r. Co., VS.. the Fayette
Land Co.
The first of these was an cicctment
suit brought in 1878, by Dale Garter
against James T. Edwards for about
1000 acres of land lying on Sunday
Ridge. After the institution of the
suit Carter died, and this tract to-
gether with boundary of about l30,-
900 acres has been sold by the Carter
heirs and the heirs of James Camp
bell to the Virginia Tenn, and Car
DINA Steel and Iron Co., and this
company was the real plaintiff in the
eiectment trial above referred to.
The case was ably contested on both
sides, and after eight days trial the
Jury rendered verdict for defendant.
The Importance of the case lies IN
the fact that the title relied on by
the plaintiffs is the same under which
the Va. r. g. C. S. d /. Co., claims
the whole of the 10000 acre boun-
dairy. This boundary covers about
one-forth of Wise county on the
northeastern side. There is scarcely
n foot of it however, which is not
claimed by others, and to recover the
possession of this adversely claimed
part the Va. T. d G.. S. d [. Co., has
brought a hundred or more eicctment
suits in the U. S. Circuit Court at
Abingdon. The adverse claimants
look upon the Wise county verdict
as great victory, and feel certain
that they will likewise be successful
in the United States Court.
The case of the l.. d n. r. R. Co.,
VS.. The Fayettc Land Co., was a
chancery suit brought by the rail
road company for the amount of
1870. 600. 90 due it from the defendant
on the purchase of the "Flannary
Tract" of land at Big Stone Gap.
This land was bought during the
boom of 1890 for $3.50, 600 and at the
time was looked upon as a great bar
cain. Since the subsistence OF the
boom, however the purchasers have
concluded that they madea bad trade
and sought to have the sale resclnd-
ed on the alledged ground that under
the law of Virginia railroad compa-
ny is prohibited from purchasing
more than forty acres, and that the
title to all over this amount eschcatcd
to the State. But the court could
not see the matter in this light, and
render judgment against the defendant
for $120, 600, 90 and interest, and re-
ferrcd the case to commissioner TO
report upon liens ETC., with view to
satisfy the judgment if it is not paid.
The Favcttc Land Co., shortly after
it's purchase, held an auction sale at
which it sold lots amount
ing to $lO0,000.00 to numerous pur-
chascrs. The result of the above de-
cision will be that these purchasers
will be released from further payment
and will have the right to require the
Fayctte Land CO., to return the cash
payments by them, unless the f'ayette
Land Co., should settle the l.. d n.
Judgment in full. This is hardly
probable, however, as the land COM
panv is insolveMt and the land is not
worth third of what they gave for
it..
The other suit referred to viz: Good
loe, Trustee, VS.. Simpson, was chan
Gerry suit to collect the balance Of the
purchase money. on sale of 4 lot by
the Sulphur Springs Co. The court
decided that the company had made
certain representations concerning
the building OF q bridge and hotel,
which had not been complied
with, and that for this reason the
sale should be rescinded 1t is fair
to the Sulphur Springs Co., to say,
however, that this case will be no au-
thority in other cases of the same
character for the reason each case
must stand upon its own bottom and
will depend upon the particular rep
resentions made to each individual
purchaser.