The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-03-10
THIRD EJECTMENT SUIT
Neidners Are Not Disposed to Give
Up the Battle.
RESULTS OF FORMER TRIALS
One Verdict Was for Mrs. Weiduer aud
the Other for the Land Company.
Case Has Been TO tho
Supreme Court.

Another chapter in the famous eject
ment proceedings of Laura E. Weidner
against the New York, Ontario and
Western Land company, has opened.
Attorney 5. Il. Price. representing Mrs.
Weidner and her husband. A. j. Weld
ner, yesterday began an ejectment suit
against the above company to recover
an undivided One-eighth interest in sew
enty acres of coal land in Olyphant
borough. 1t is the third ejectment suit
that has been brought for this land.
Mrs. Weidner Won the first one, the
company the second, and now Mrs
Weidncr has begun the third battle for
what she believes Is her property.
Mrs. Weidner is one of the eight chill
dr-n of Alexander Dolph, who died in
1860. after naming his son, Edward
Dolph, as the executor of his last will
and testament. In 1868, Edward Dolph
purchased of his sister, Laura &. Weld
ner her interest In her fathers estate
which was an undivided one eighth in
tereSt thereof This assignment was
not acknowledged. but was recorded in
1872. and then there was written ac-
Acknowledgement upon 1t, without separ-
ate acknowledgment by the wife. Mrs.
Weidn-r was paid 81. 800 for her inter-
est. but claims that it was then worth
SlU,00O.
In 1855 Mrs. Weidner brought an ac-
tion in ejectment for the land now in
dispute on the ground that the purchase
by the executor of her interest
was illegal and for the further
reason that there was an absence Of
acknowledgment of the deed.
DEATH OF EDWARD DOLPH.
Edward Dolph died In April. 1890.
e,Il ,s.,.- lxt. t....,
Isaac p Hand and Edward s. Dolph,
filed a bill in equity i'm the court of
common pleas of this county under the
provisions of an act which gives courts
of equity power to reform defective ac-
acknowledgements. The bill alleged that
the acknowledgment of the assignment
of April II. 1865. executed and delir-
cred by Laura e. Weidner and a. j.
Weidner conveyed property Of the wife
to Edward Dolph and was defective In
not stating that Mrs. Weidner was eN-
amined separate and apart from her
husband and asked the relief afforded
by the art of assembly.
The answer OF the WeidnerS was a
denial that there had been any acknowl-
elgment before the justice, ~ w. War
ner. or any other officer. The defendant
In the present case who had purchased
the interest of Edward Dolph in the
land and the Delaware and Hudson
Canal company, who had leased the
coal from Mrs. Weidner. were also
Joineu as uelehuants u, t'iat case: M
Dill was oishiisSeu u, 'he court vi 'o,'-
mon pieas' an app'a, Was tahen ~ tne
Supre'ne court anu ."s ue.,e'. % nii,li,,c"
Inc nrst eJectiheht was 'heN prouth.
on ior ,rial anu ver"'c, was il''a io,
Mrs Weioner, an eNe'u,I'' ISSUE" anu
sme was put i!lto possessio'i ol ,he iahu;
Inc company sun clai,neu tne iahu anu
pelltioh was iiieu ",iuer ac, VI assem-
pis. requ,r'ns tne oeieateo par.s vi
claimant 10 prlns tJeetnltht within SIN
nloh'ns' ""''e"p"'i ""''"e' ""'' was
orous"'.
FIRST SIrIT WAS PENDING
MI. ors, o;.o,,.n, ,u;t v.a, ,a,diny
,.h.n ,ha Na. vn,l. on,a,;o an5 yVast
- ,o,',a,,,,. anaw,n, - -.
,,,,n,'hnsaa ~. ;,,arast ~, irau,,ri
nn,nh In Tho land A. IN. ,acond triai
90 ,ha,a.a a,hacon,nanv,s ,onnsaI oe,a,.d
H.. assi"n,n.nt frnn, Wsidnnr and
his wife to Edward Do,nb. II wos oh.
49,, ,a =, h.oa,,sa no, nrn,,a,,,, ",smou,I
edysJ Tha nhiertion ,yas overru,ed
GA tho a,,;aancs aamittad haco,,.a of
H., ,a.,,,a o,,,;,a da,a,,tI'a oat,nau,I
.,dun,ants
nj, Ja,ara.nt of,.roa =, nro,.. ,hot
there was no acknowledgment of the
s's"','r.' w. VI, ,r, .,i's Wv,
We"
a.s' az. ., ome,ru " p'o,t 'nu. 'ne ,'iue u,
VIC p,ope,s ~ u,' Na Wy n'u.'
s.a' '',',' , Nv, W, np' III. ~, Iu''',
's,,a'o,' ; nav pau ~, ~ ,. W. ,i'," n.y.,
uence' ~, ouJec''ol'; We rA.'uucu. @ nv
cou,'sei ~, .lr p'a;,l.I', anu u.leii",,,'' ,,
cav ' anh'" ~, pi",nS ',H., v, ,'',i,', nv
cou.t "iie',e" Nrlu,V, ~. 'ne I'''''''
~, 'ne 'a''. usHr'ioe, !" ~, nv Mrl.
~ Was nei" Wy .ne Nc,u''e,s ,h',
M 'iieIe "aH Nv a,N,'ow Ie"s ,''.h.' tne ''ee"
was No'u anu tnere Is no Jaw ma. cuIes
u, anu the court eideo III ,eJect'hs the
eEluehce u 'nat e.eo,' that tnt pre-"
Nlso oi 'ne ac. OF iesi that this act
shuil NOT Apply 10 su',S pehuiiS aiu uii-
determined rehoereo IL ihapp'icao'e tp
the case at issue as II FORMER eJectinent
was pehoihs Whicil was SUBSTANTIALLY