Hinman v. Cranmer

• Citation: 9 Pa. 40
• Parties: HINMAN <I>v.</I> CRANMER.
• Decision Date: 24 July 1848
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 40

9 Pa. 40

HINMAN v. CRANMER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 17, 1848.

July 24, 1848.

July 17.

IN error from the Common Pleas of Bradford.

Williston, for plaintiff in error.

White, contrà.

July 24. COULTER, J.

The second section of the act of 1785 clearly and distinctly recognises an entry as one of the modes by which the owner of lands may toll the statute of limitations, and the bringing a writ of right, or any other real or possessory action, as another. The statute does not operate on the possession of the intruder, disseissor or trespasser, but operates on the right of entry and the right of action residing in the owner; and provides that either or both shall be used within twenty-one years after the same first descended or accrued, and not after, except in specified instances. The right acquired by the disseisor or intruder is a result of the laches of the owner.

In England, by the common law, a descent cast takes away the right of entry: Coke Littleton, 237; because the heir of the disseisor was presumed to come in by title. The right of entry existed in England for the purpose of avoiding a fine with proclamations, but in that case the action to recover possession is required to be brought within a year after the entry. The right of entry distinct from the right of action existed in the owner of lands in England against intruders or disseisors; and the English statute of James, on the subject of limitation, from which ours is copied, was tolled by an entry. But by the statute of 3 & 4 William 4, passed in 1833, the whole matter is revised, and in the 10th section it is enacted "that no person shall be deemed to have been in possession of any land, within the meaning of this act, merely by reason of having made an entry thereon." I may observe that this statute adopts and systematizes many improvements. But the legislature of this state have not seen fit to meddle with the statute of 1785 on this subject, and it belongs not to the court to alter or change the statutory law. It has been decided in many cases in this state that an entry prevents the running of the statute; and it could not have been otherwise held without doing violence both to its spirit and letter: Carlisle v. Stitler, 1 Penn. Rep. 8; Holtzapple v. Phillibaum, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 356; Altemas v. Campbell, 9 Watts, 28. In Altemus v. Long, 4 Barr, 254, it was ruled that the owner, by making entry on the lands, tolled the statute. This may have a tendency to...