Bachop v. Critchlow

Citations

• 142 Pa. 518
• 21 A. 984
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 769

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. In an action of ejectment, brought to recover the whole of a specified tract of land, a recovery may be had for an undivided part thereof, if the plaintiff’s proofs, failing to establish a title in him to the whole of the land sought to be recovered, show that he is invested with title to an undivided interest therein.</p> <p>2. Although a patentee is regarded as a trustee for the rightful owner, the patent is prima facie evidence of title, especially against one who relies on possession alone, and whose rights, if any, accrued after its date; and recitals in a patent are evidence against all persons claiming under it, or by title arising or originating subsequent to it.</p> <p>3« A patent was issued to C. H. Owens “for himself and in trust for” others named, “heirs of Mary Owens, deceased, and E. O. Crocker; ” habendum to “ C. H. Owens ” and others, “ heirs of Mary Owens, deceased, and E. O. Crocker,” etc. Upon the face of the patent, Crocker was prima facie entitled to the undivided half of the land, and the persons named as heirs of Mary Owens to the other half.</p> <p>4. The plaintiff, showing a regular chain of title from Crocker to himself, commencing with a conveyance, with covenant of general warranty, made by Crocker prior to the date of the patent, was entitled to recover the undivided one half of the land, the defendant showing no title, the patent enuring to the benefit of Crocker’s vendee, through the warranty.</p> <p>5. A treasurer’s sale of land for taxes will pass no title unless there be some element of identification in the tax assessment itself, leading to a knowledge of the land assessed; a description, or some circumstance, number or adjoiner, associated or connected with it, or a name connected at some lime with a title thereto, good or bad.*</p>