Craft v. Yeaney

• Decision Date: 07 November 1870
• Citation: Craft v. Yeaney, 66 Pa. 210 (Pa. 1870)
• Parties: Craft <I>et al. versus</I> Yeaney <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 210

66 Pa. 210

Craft et al. versus Yeaney et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 20, 1870.

November 7, 1870.

October 20th 1870.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Common Pleas of Jefferson county: No 1, to October and November Term 1870.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

G. A. Jenks (with whom were Jenks & Clark), for plaintiffs in error.—Possession not having been taken under the verdict in ejectment, trespass cannot be maintained: Caldwell v. Walters, 10 Harris 380. Mentioning the eastern line of the warrant was a description of the boundary, and Mrs. Scott could hold to it: Chaplin v. Srodes, 7 Watts 410. Calls for adjoiners control courses, distances and quantity: Petts v. Gaw, 3 Harris 222; Cox v. Couch, 8 Barr 154. A grantor cannot disprove the title he has conveyed: McIldowney v. Williams, 4 Casey 495.

A. L. Gordon (with whom was J. Gordon), for defendants in error.—Possession follows the title of unseated lands: Mather v. Trinity Church, 3 S. & R. 509; Harlan v. Harlan, 3 Harris 515; Cutting timber by an intruder will not give him possession: Rifener v. Bowman, 3 P. F. Smith 319. A tract cannot go beyond its marks to reach calls: Bellas v. Cleaver, 4 Wright 267; Blasdell v. Bissell, 8 Barr 258; Brolaskey v. McLain, 11 P. F. Smith 146.

The opinion of the court was delivered, November 7th 1870, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The subject-matter of the 1st assignment of error on this record, has long been settled in this Commonwealth, and is not now an open question, namely: that calls in a deed are always liable to be controlled by lines on the ground. I regard this as a rule well nigh, if not entirely, without exception: Younkin v. Cowan, 10 Casey 198; Bellas v. Cleaver, 4 Wright 260; Boynton v. Urian, 5 P. F. Smith 142; Darrah & Carrier v. Bryant, 6 Id. 69, and Brolaskey v. McLain, 11 Id. 146. These are recent cases, and at hand, but they follow in a long line of precedents from the earliest times in this state. When, therefore, the learned judge asserted the doctrine, and applied it to the evidence, he committed no error abstractly, nor in its application to the case. The great question in the case was whether or not an east line had been run and marked as and for the eastern boundary of subdivision No. 7 of tract No. 4019, and whether the defendant's grantor had purchased by it. That it had been, there is not a doubt. It is proved by Elijah Heath; and the age of the line conclusively proves its existence before or at least contemporaneously with Mrs. Scott's purchase. It was by this line also that the conveyance was made, for there was no tract line on the ground at that time. The eastern boundary of the tract was actually run between its corners fifteen years thereafter. If therefore a line was on the ground as the east boundary of subdivision No. 7 in 1854 or 1855, it was incontestably not the line of the east boundary of the tract, for, as just said, it was not then run and was 200 perches further east than the eastern boundary of the subdivision. No doubt Mr. Heath thought he was running this eastern boundary on the line of the entire tract. This was a clear mistake, but one which did not in the least injure his grantee or those claiming under her. They got all the land they bargained for, within a slight fraction, and they were offered compensation for the deficiency, but declined receiving it. But even this deficiency was not occasioned by the location of the east line. It was in other lines of the subdivisions. The questions of the running the east line of subdivision No. 7, and where it was, and whether the conveyance by Heath was by it, were properly submitted to the jury, and were found in favor of the plaintiffs below, and this was a substantial finding of the case for them; the trespass sued for being undeniedly between that line and the eastern boundary of the entire tract, the title to which was in ...