Steele v. Spruance

• Decision Date: 01 October 1853
• Citation: 22 Pa. 256
• Parties: Steele versus Spruance.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

22 Pa. 256

Steele versus Spruance.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Erie county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thompson, for plaintiff in error.—The defendants had a right to show cause why execution should not issue: 2 Saunders 72; 2 W. & Ser. 95.

By the Act of 1804 the plaintiff had a right to the land upon payment of the value assessed by the jury, and not otherwise. The defendants have the right of possession till payment or tender: 12 Ser. & R. 143; 5 Watts 350, Miller v. Keen. The defendants having no means to enforce the payment, and being bound to remain in possession or lose the advantage of the improvements, the plaintiff should be bound to tender the amount fixed by the jury within a reasonable time. In this case there has been gross laches, and during such period no notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendants that he intended to take advantage of the verdict. After waiting for six years other improvements were made, and after several years more the lands having risen in value, the position of the parties is different from what it was at the rendition of the verdict. It was said that under these circumstances the plaintiff should be estopped: 4 Dallas 348; 5 Ser. & R. 443; 7 Watts 400; 1 Jones 429; 4 W. & Ser. 328; 12 Ser. & R. 376; 3 Harris 429; 5 Watts 451.

It was further contended, if the plaintiff was not estopped, that interest on the amount found by the jury was recoverable. That it was an incident to every judgment in this state: 4 Dal. 251; also cited 5 Watts 350. The law recognises the equity of improvement as a high equity. It was further contended that the plaintiff should not have execution on the judgment of 1849, but should be left to resort to a second ejectment, wherein the defendants could have their whole improvements estimated.

Marshall, for defendant in error, plaintiff below.—As to whether the plaintiff was estopped, it was said that the right of compensation in the defendants for improvements was a statutory right, under the Act of 13th March, 1815, and the remedy allowed was the retention of the possession till payment of the amount assessed for improvements. No time for payment is fixed by that Act, and the Court have no power to limit it. If they had, there was no necessity for the provision as to limitation of time in the Act of 1842. The valuation is no part of the judgment: 5 Watts 350, Miller v. Keene.

As to the 2d point, it was said that interest was not given by the Act of Assembly. At common law the defendants were liable to be turned out of possession without compensation for improvements. They are not entitled to other or more extensive rights than are given by the Act. But further, the defendants have had the use of the improvements.

The question as to compensation for improvements made since the verdict was not pressed in this Court; but as to such it was said that they were made by defendants after notice by the recovery of the plaintiff's title, and were made in their own wrong. Reference was made to the opinion of GIBSON, C. J., in the case of Gilmore v. Thompson, 3 Watts 110.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by KNOX, J.

A majority of the Court in Coney v. Owen, 6 Watts 435, held, that a sale for the non-payment of taxes of unseated donation land, during the life of the soldier, was void, and conferred no title upon the purchaser; but that he could not be dispossessed without compensation for his improvements.

Under this decision, the defendant's damages were assessed for his improvements at $776.

Three questions are now presented by the pleadings, all of which were ruled below in favor of the plaintiff:

1. Did the delay in paying or offering to pay the assessed value of the improvements for a period of nearly twelve years work a forfeiture of plaintiff's title?

2. Was he bound to pay for improvements made after three years had passed from the date of the verdict, and before the...