The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-11-10

of tho Litigation win Possibly
Double That sum-.Another Case
in which the Game Is Not Worth
the Powder. Brothers at Law.
once more the famous Hartley-Hull
ejectment case is before the courts
1t was called yesterday morning in
common pleas, Judge Mcclure, of
Union county, specially presiding. Jes-
sup & Jessup appear for the plaintiff,
and Hon. w. w. Watson and C. b.
Gardner for the defendants.
The suit is for a 51-acre tract of
land situated near Moscow and COM
monty known as the old Potter farm.
The plaintiff claims it by purchase
from NJ. j. Robinson. The defendants
allege that the transfer from Robin
son to Hartley was fraudulent and
that their title, derived through sher-
ifs sale, is the legal one. The plain
tiffs make answer TO this by the allie
cation that the judgment against Rob
inson, on which the sheriff's sale was
made, could not cover the land in ques-
tion as Robinson did not own it at the
time.
II appears lTOIn the bNlubHCe
ed at former trials of the case that
the whole question revolves around the
honesty of the transfer from Robinson
to Hartley. They are cousins, and
this coupled with the fact that the
conveyance bears the same date, April
z, 1888, as that which appears on the
judgment note in question, gives the
defendants their ground for arguing
ho Go 10 "a f,ot
ulent intent.
NOTE GIVEN TO LEEK.
The note in question was for 1884
and was given to w. II. Leek, of Cliff
ford, -Susquehanna county, from whom
Robinson purchased a store. The note
was subsequently assigned to a. A.
Tingley and later to William A. Tink-
er, of Greenfield township. In Aug
ust 1887, Tinker died and his widow,
| Mrs. Minerva A. Tinker, together with
her brother, John p. Hull, acting in
the capacity Of administrators, execut-
ed on the Robinson note. They found
deed on record showing Robinson to
| be the owner OF the Potter farm and
proceeded to sell it at sheriff's sale.
| The property was not bid up sufficient
| ly to cover the Judgment so the ad-
ministrators bought it in for the estate
and took the sheriff's deed for the
| same
Some time after the acknowledge
ment and delivery Of the sheriff's deed,
| Hartley came in with his conveyance
| and endeavored to nullify the sale on
| the ground that he and not Robinson
was the owner of the farm. This was
the Inauguration of the present case.
The record of the proceedings since
| that time would fill library. In June,
| 1888, the summons in ejectment was is
sued. The case was referred to arbi-
traitors and in August following an
award was made in favor of the de-
fendant, The plaintiff appealed and in
a jury trial, which took place in April,
1891, succeeded in securing a reversal
of the arbitratOrs' award. The de-
PENDANTS secured new trial and in
April, 1892, jury gave them a ver-
dict
SECURED ANOTHER TRIAL.
The plaintiff secured another new
trial and in the following June
the case was once more heard, the
defendant winning. Again the plain
| tiff secured a rule for a new trial but
in January, 1894, the rule was discharg-
ed. Thereupon the plaintiff took the
case to the supreme court, but the
upper tribunal refused to interfere
| The present action is a second suit in
| ejectment. The law in this state re-
| qures that two successive ejectments
must be won to perfect a title claimed
through a sheriff's sale. Usually there
is no opposition to the second suit, but
in this instance, Hartley chooses to dc
battle and hence the beginning of pos
sibly another ten years war.
| Yesterday proceedings were simply
a rehash of evidence adduced at pre-
vious trials. The only thing brought
out which adds in any material way tC
the story is Robinson's explanation
that he acted as agent for the land
while Hartley owned 1t. The case will
likely consume several days. The
value of the land in dispute is vari-
ously estimated from $1,000, the price
which Hartley is alleged to have paid
for it, to $4,000, the value placed upon
it by the defendants.
| Judge Archibald and a jury in the
main court room had to deal with an.
other case in which the costs of liti.
cation far exceed the amount involved
The plaintiff, John Mahon, in 1894 ten.
anted house on Leggett street, Provi.
dence, for which the defendant, Mrs
Bridget Robinson, was agent. The
garden was low and after every storm
was filed with water. Mahon TOLD
Mrs. Robinson that he would have t.
move out if the condition of affair!
was not bettered, and she, he alleges
authorized him to make whatever i'm
provements were necessary at her ex
pense.
HELD BACK THE RENT.
He worked seventeen days fill
ing in the garden and building a drair
| IN GARRY off tho yvotar op1 e,,1,n,i..o -,