Satterlee v. Mathewson

• Decision Date: 20 June 1825
• Parties: SATTERLEE ET AL. v. MATTHEWSON.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

13 Serg. & Rawle 133

SATTERLEE ET AL. v. MATTHEWSON.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 20, 1825

IN ERROR.

The rule of law, that the tenant cannot contest his landlord's title, is not applicable, where the title of such landlord is a Connecticut title, existing in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania.

Therefore such tenant, afterwards purchasing a Pennsylvania title, and continuing to hold under it, may set it up against his original landlord, who claimed under a Connecticut title though subsequently to such purchase, the landlord also took out another Pennsylvania title.^[a]

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county.

Mallory and Greenough, for the plaintiffs in error.

Burnside and Denison, contra.

OPINION

TILGHMAN C. J.

This is an ejectment, for a tract of land in Bradford county. Elizabeth Matthewson, the plaintiff below, claimed under a warrant dated the 10th of January 1812, calling for an improvement in 1785, and a patent, the 19th of February 1813; the improvement was under a Connecticut title. The defendants made title under an application in the name of John Stoner, dated the 3d of April 1769, and a survey in 1773; Stoner conveyed on the 5th of April 1775, to Matthias Slough, who conveyed on the 5th of April 1780, to Joseph Wharton; on the 17th of April 1781, a patent issued to Wharton, who, on the first of April 1812, conveyed to J. F. Satterlee, one of the defendants. Thus, it appears, that the title of the defendants was the oldest and best, provided the land in dispute was covered by their survey; this was disputed, and was, of course, a fact to be decided by the jury.

But several points of law arose on the trial, all of which, on the argument in this court, were reduced to one. It was contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that even granting the title shown by the defendant to be the best, yet, he was estopped from contesting the plaintiff's title, having come into possession as his tenant. On the other hand, although the defendant conceded the general rule of law to be, that a tenant shall not controvert his landlord's title, yet he denied its application to the present case; because the relation of landlord and tenant could not exist between the persons holding under a Connecticut title. It is very clear, that one who entered on land in Pennsylvania, under a title derived from the state of Connecticut, acquired no right, in law or equity. What is called an improvement or settlement right, arises from an implied contract, between the settler and the commonwealth, that the settler should have the right to pre-emption, in consideration of the benefit rendered to the public by his improvement; but a settler under Connecticut could not pretend to an implied contract with the commonwealth, because he set up a title in direct opposition to the commonwealth; he rendered no benefit to Pennsylvania; but did her a great injury, by acting in defiance of her laws.

It would be a waste of time to enter now into the nature of the Connecticut title; it is a matter of history, well known to the public, and may be found in the cases of Enslin v Bowman, 6 Binn. 467, and Dailey v. Avery, 4 Serg. & Rawle 281. In the last of these cases, it is said by the court that one claiming by a settlement under Connecticut could...