The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-17
HIsTORY % I'M -.

For siHtetp years John b. Laidley had
been fighting Dob the courts for the pro-
perty no finally came into possession.
Tie secured bis fortune by tho merest
tcchnicality and lived only a few days %
enjoy the fruits of MS years OF effort and
Cuceasing labor 20 upset a deed which
was negotiated by hts father.
This case Is such an interesting one IL
s. we'll 10 SPEAK of &c locally on Febru-
airy q. $50. John NJ. Pennybacker and
his wife. Sarah II. O.. Pennybacker.
united in a deed conveying TO Mr. g.. +.
Huntington a tract OF land upon which
a largo portion Of the city of Hunting
ton IS built. john p. Loidlcy.s father
was Mr. Huutugt0us representative DO
this transaction.
There is a peculiar provision in the
Code OF Virginia which reads as tol-
lows:
where a husband and his wife have
signed n writing purporting % convey
real estate. She may appear before a re-
cOrdcr authorized 20 admit suon writing
10 record in his Office. and IL on being eN-
amined privlly ana apart from her hus-
band by such recorder. and having such
writing explained 90 her. she acknoW-
lodges the same to be her act and de-
clare that she had willingly executed the
same and does not wish % retract IL,
such privy examination. acknowledgment
and declaration shall then be recorded
by such recorder IN his office
a SMALL ERROR.
Iaidley's good perhaps, 70
should be called bad fOrtune-was the re-
suit OF an error on the part Of the re-
corder He made this record as concern
ing Mrs. Pennybackers part in making
the deed:
And being examined by me prlvily and
apart from her husband ana having the
deed aforesaid, fully explained 10 her
she the said Sarah IL. O.. PennyDacker
acknowledged that she had willingly
signed, sealed and delivered the same and
wished not 10 retire IT,
This would appear 10 d layman 10 be
an sufficient. but John 3. Laidiey ris-
ing young lawyer, picked flaw IN the
record. About twelve years after tho
deed had been on record, Mr.. Pennyback-
or died. Laidley convinced Mrs. Penny
hacker that the property IN question was
hers. ana he bought 1t from her for the
sum OF 800 notwithstanding 10 had IN
creased i'm value many fold, for the CITY
OF Huntington had been built upon the
land. In the meantime Mr.. Huntington
mad Transferred the property 10 the CEN
tral Land Company ia which he was inc
principal stakeholder
THE CASE ~ COURT.
The legal proceedings were commenced
bv I.aldley in April. l5s2 IN the circuit
Court OF Cabeu county W Va. He
brought an action OF eJectment and the
court decided In favor OF the company
Laidley took an appeal 70 the Court ot
ADDeals OF West Virginia. That tribunal
held that the instructions Laidley asked
for should have been given and thar the
wlfs's acknowledgment was detective.
new trial was ordered.
In The meantime the land company Med
In the County Court a bin In equity
against Iaidley. which after a hearing
was dismissed. The company appealed %
the Court OF Appeals which sustained the
lower tribunal
In September 1870, toe action OF eject
ment was ugain tried IN the Circuit Court
and Laidiey won The company appeal
ed and the Court OF Appeals refused 20
reverse the action. The company then
took the case 20 the United states SUI
preme Court. That body through a ce-
cission rendered by Mr.. Justice Gray de-
cided that no Federal questions were IN
volved and the case was thrown ont or
court. Justice Field dissented.
Mr.. HUNTINGTON LOSES.
Proceedings were then renewed IN the
West virginia courts and recently the
cornpanv was f1rced 10 surrender 10 Lad
lev. He secures property valued al 30
no. FOR which no paid only SOD Mr.
Huntington Is he principal loser.
the late Senator Johl r. henna was
one of Ialdlev's early counsel and WIN
MIN were W r. Chiffon and J. r.
Brown. T. p. EnslOw. J. II. Ferguson
o,a "a G. Sims represented the company.