Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Pa. 471

Yoder v. Yoder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 17, 1852

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1852-06-17

<p>F. settled upon, land and died in possession, leaving his widow and minor child in actual possession. The widow, during the minority of her child, sold the improvement right to B., who took possession, and died leaving a widow and children. The widow of B. became married to Y., who went upon the land, and afterwards purchased from the child and heir of F., the settler. Y. afterwards sold to the plaintiff, his son.</p> <p>_ In an ejectment by the son against Y. and his wife, and another in possession, it was held that the purchase by B. from the widow of F. gave to him no title as against the heir of F., and the possession by Y. was the continuance of a wrong against the said heir; that there was no obligation in F. to purchase for his wife and those with him in possession; and that his purchase from the heir of F. and his conveyance to the plaintiff, gave the latter title as against the wife of Y. and the family of B.; and that the wife of Y., although abandoned by her husband, could not, under the possession of F., her husband, maintain her possession of the land by virtue of the statute of limitations.</p>

Decided 1852-06-17

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Lowuie, J.

¶2Peter Yoder acknowledges the Ery title, that it is now owned by Benjamin Yoder, and that he is Benjamin’s tenant. Under such circumstances, neither Peter nor any of his family can claim to have obtained a title by adverse possession.

¶3The Ery title was good against all but the Commonwealth; and Peter Burris got no shadow of title, as against the heir of Ery, when he bought from Ery’s widow. And when Burris died, and Peter Yoder married his widow and continued the possession of the Burris family, he was continuing a wrong against the heir of Ery. When, therefore, Mrs. Stahl arrived at age and asserted her title as heir of Ery, it would have been wrong for Peter Yoder to resist her claim, either for the Burris family or for himself. Being in conscience bound to abandon a possession wrongfully held, *473he was not under any kind of obligation to buy in the true title for the benefit of those who, with him, were holding in disregard-of it; and there was nothing to prevent him from buying for himself. When he took the deed'to himself] and then conveyed to Benjamin, he was distinctly asserting a purchase on his own account, and there is no evidence that he ever considered himself as holding for the Burris family. The Court below was therefore right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/18/pa/471 · .json · Public domain