Citation Numbers: 36 Ky. 436
Judges: Ewing
Filed Date: 6/6/1838
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/29/2022
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
An action of ejectment was brought by Ford’s heirs, for a tract of land in the possession of the defendants— both parties claiming under the same patent.
A patent issued to Dupey for one thousand acres of land, in 1786. In 1796, Dupey sold to Richmond Harris, a certain boundary within said patent, and bound himself, in writing, to convey the same. On the 2d of December, 1797, he sold to Joel Ford the three hundred acres now claimed by his heirs, the lessors of the plaintiff, and, on the 27th January, 1801, conveyed the title. This deed covers the most of the land previously sold to Harris.
Haris, immediately thereafter, filed his bill against Dupey and Ford, alleging the payment of the considera, tion, and praying that the title might be decreed to him, according to his purchase, and obtained an order for publication against Ford, who was a non-resident; which was inserted only eight weeks, and in other respects was irregular. In 1806, the cause was heard, and the Court decreed that Harris had the better right to the land, and, ymder the decree, it was laid off by metes and bounds;
Upon the hypothesis of the belief of the foregoing facts, the Court, among other instructions, instructed the jury, that the defendants were estopped from relying upon the statute of limitation, as a bar to the plaintiffs recovery. And the principle involved in this instruction's the only point which we deem necessary to notice.
The principle is well established that, from the relation subsisting between landlord and tenant, the possession of the latter is generally deemed the possession of the former, and he is estopped to deny or controvert his title.
And it hás also been settled by this Court, that a person let into possession under an executory contract of purchase, looking up to his vendor for a title, occupies as quasi tenant, and, in some respects, the same relation subsists between them, as between landlord and tenant.
But, though a tenant is estopped to controvert the title of his landlord, he is not estopped to show that his title has. been extinguished, or has expired. Swan vs. Wilson, 1 Marshall, 99; Logan vs. Steele’s Heirs, 7 Monroe, 104. And even in the case of an ordinary tenancy, cases may occur, in which he will be permitted, from lapse of time, and the attitude which he has occupied in relation to his landlord, to rely upon the statute of limitation, as was settled by the Supreme Court, in the case of Willison vs. Watkins, 3 Peters, 43. The beneficent
But it does not from thence follow, that after he has , . , . . . . , . been permitted to occupy, claiming the premises as his-own, he may not be permitted to rely upon the statute-, and bar the right of entry of his vendor.
Indeed, it seems quite reasonable, that he should be permitted to do so, when he has paid up the full consideration, and for twenty years occupied the premises uninterruptedly, as his own. No equitable or moral obligation rests upon him to restore the possession, and he has not imposed on himself any legal obligation to do so; but, on the contrary, an equitable, legal and moral obligation, rests upon the vendor, to secure him in his possession, by making him a title. It would seem strange,, therefore, that a purchaser, who has occupied and used
But, if the foregoing views be untenable, (and we do not deem it necessary now to express a definite opinion upon them,) we cannot doubt of the defendants’ right to rely upon the statute, in the case before the Court.
Dupey, by an absolute sale of the land to Ford, disaffirmed his contract with Harris, and destroyed the relation between them. And, as was said by this Court, in the case of Logan vs. Steele's Heir's, 7 Monroe, 105, from the moment of the sale, Harris “could treat him as a stranger, and was no longer bound to look to him for a title;” and rhight, therefore, as was there settled, gainsay or controvért' his title.
Dupey, by his sale, stripped himself of all title, and forfeited all claim to allegiance or fidelity, from Harris. He placed it out of his power to afford protection, and Harris was no longer bound to look to him for it. He was not only left at liberty to controvert his title, but might set up the statute of limitation, or any other defence, to defeat his right to recover the possession.
And though Ford, his vendee, was invested with the legal title, and by reason thereof, had the right of entry, and might, until such right of entry was barred, have-recovered the possession; yet no privity of contract subsisted between him and Harris. He held the title claiming the absolute fee, and in hostility to the claim of Harris. Harris held the possession claiming it as his own, adverse to the claim of Ford, and against which he commenced a legal war, so soon as the title was conveyed to him. He, it is true, as a means of compelling him to convey and release his title, treated him as holding it in trust for his use, but he never treated himself as holding the possession under or for the use of Ford. Had he rescinded the contract, he might have been required by the chancellor, to restore the possession to Ford, who held the legal title. But he asked no rescis*
But he not only commenced a suit, claiming the land as his own, but obtained an interlocutory decree in 1806, and a final decree" in 1811, against Ford, for the land, and has remained in possession for more than twenty years, since, before this action was brought.
Now, though the decrees as to Ford may be conceded to be void, they were competent to be used to show how Harris claimed to hold, and that his holding was adverse to Ford; as was decided in the foregoing case of Logan vs. Steele’s Heirs. And when thus used, in addition to the other circumstances in this case, they place it beyond doubt, that he held,, and claimed to hold, adversely, and might rely upon the statutory bar.
The judgment of the Circuit Court, is therefore reversed, and cause remanded, that a new trial may be granted.