[LB049107], Letter from Mahlon Pitney to Thomas Alva Edison, April 21st, 1891
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/LB049107
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[LB049107], Letter from Mahlon Pitney to Thomas Alva Edison, April 21st, 1891
Author
Recipient
Mentioned
Date
1891-04-21
Type
Folder/Volume ID
LB049-F
Microfilm ID
142:183
Document ID
LB049107
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
Has Version
Item sets
Transcription
Morristown, N.J.,
April 21st, 1891.
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange, N.J.
Dear Sir:-
My client, Mr. Theodore F. King, of Drakes Ville in this County, has recently heard that you are contemplating the purchase from the Board of Proprietors of Eastern New Jersey a tract of land (or the minerals thereon) near the easterly shore of Lake Hopatcong and short distance north from the Forcite Power Works, It is Mr. King’s information that the tract you think of buying includes a part of his tract of 198 71/100 acres, which was conveyed to him by L. Moller and husband by deed dated November 27th, 1882, and recorded in the Morris County Clerk’s office in book Z.10 of deeds on page 359, &c. In order that you may not be in ignorance of his rights, Mr. King desires me to write you that his land is a part of the “James Logan Tract” in the early part of the last century (August 22nd, 1715) the return being recorded in the Surveyor General’s Office at Burlington in Liber B., on page 41. From that time to the present the title to the Logan Tract and the several parts thereof has been passed from hand to hand in regular succession, and the entire chain of title appears upon the records in the Morris County Clerk’s Office, down to and including the deed to Mr. King. I am aware of course that the East Jersey Proprietors claim the Logan title is not good as against them. This claim of theirs is disputed by Mr. King and by the several other parties who claim under the Logan patent. But (not to go at this time into the question of the record title) it is capable of easy proof that the whole of Mr. King’s land has been held in possession by him and these under whom he claims title for at least fifty years now last past. The greater part of this land is now fenced in and occupied for farming purposes. Another part is not at present enclosed by boundary fences, but this part else was fenced for thirty years or more, and until a few years ago, so that Mr. King’s necessary title to his whole tract is as we think unavailable.
Mr. King trusts that you will not seek to claim any title in opposition to this, as this would only necessitate a litigation to establish his title, which has now remained unquestioned for 175 years. And I have to request that before you complete your intended purchase from the East Jersey Proprietors you will satisfy yourself that no part of the lands you seek to acquire are within the lines of Mr. King’s deed.
Will you kindly favor me with a reply, and oblige.
Yours, &c.,
(Signed) Mahlon Pitney.
April 21st, 1891.
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Orange, N.J.
Dear Sir:-
My client, Mr. Theodore F. King, of Drakes Ville in this County, has recently heard that you are contemplating the purchase from the Board of Proprietors of Eastern New Jersey a tract of land (or the minerals thereon) near the easterly shore of Lake Hopatcong and short distance north from the Forcite Power Works, It is Mr. King’s information that the tract you think of buying includes a part of his tract of 198 71/100 acres, which was conveyed to him by L. Moller and husband by deed dated November 27th, 1882, and recorded in the Morris County Clerk’s office in book Z.10 of deeds on page 359, &c. In order that you may not be in ignorance of his rights, Mr. King desires me to write you that his land is a part of the “James Logan Tract” in the early part of the last century (August 22nd, 1715) the return being recorded in the Surveyor General’s Office at Burlington in Liber B., on page 41. From that time to the present the title to the Logan Tract and the several parts thereof has been passed from hand to hand in regular succession, and the entire chain of title appears upon the records in the Morris County Clerk’s Office, down to and including the deed to Mr. King. I am aware of course that the East Jersey Proprietors claim the Logan title is not good as against them. This claim of theirs is disputed by Mr. King and by the several other parties who claim under the Logan patent. But (not to go at this time into the question of the record title) it is capable of easy proof that the whole of Mr. King’s land has been held in possession by him and these under whom he claims title for at least fifty years now last past. The greater part of this land is now fenced in and occupied for farming purposes. Another part is not at present enclosed by boundary fences, but this part else was fenced for thirty years or more, and until a few years ago, so that Mr. King’s necessary title to his whole tract is as we think unavailable.
Mr. King trusts that you will not seek to claim any title in opposition to this, as this would only necessitate a litigation to establish his title, which has now remained unquestioned for 175 years. And I have to request that before you complete your intended purchase from the East Jersey Proprietors you will satisfy yourself that no part of the lands you seek to acquire are within the lines of Mr. King’s deed.
Will you kindly favor me with a reply, and oblige.
Yours, &c.,
(Signed) Mahlon Pitney.