Kreamer v. Yoneida

Citations

• 213 Pa. 74
• 62 A. 518

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Voluntary appearance — Proof of possession by defendant.</p> <p>Where a defendant in an ejectment enters a voluntary appearance without service of a writ upon him, or notice given as directed by any statute to appear and plead to the action, the plaintiff will be entitled to judgment, but only by proof of title in himself, and possession by the defendant of the lands in controversy.</p> <p>The plaintiff in an ejectment is not in a position to ask for the application of the Act of March 29, 1824, P. L. 167, where he himself has not complied with the directions of the act.</p> <p>Ejectment — Service of writ — Nonresident defendant — Publication of rule to appear and plead — Possession—Practice, C. P. — Acts of April 13, 1807, 4 Sm. L. 476, April 14, 1851, P. L. 612, and April 13, 1858, P. L. 256.</p> <p>Where a sheriff’s return to a writ of ejectment for unseated land shows that the land was unoccupied, that the defendant did not reside in the county, and had no agent in charge of the land in the county, and that notice of the suit was given personally to the defendant in another county, and the record further shows an appearance for the defendant, but fails to show a rule on him to appear and plead with publication thereof as provided by the Acts of April 14, 1851, P. L. 612, and April 13, 1858, P. L. 256, the return and the record raise no presumption that the defendant was in possession of the land described in the writ.</p> <p>Ejectment — Title from commonwealth — Abandonment—Adverse possession.</p> <p>A perfect title passing by the commonwealth’s patent is in no danger from the doctrine of abandonment, unless, in consequence of abandonment, adverse possession is taken by another and held for the period of the statute of limitations.</p>