McClements v. Downey

Citations

• 2 Pa. Super. 443
• 1896 Pa. Super. LEXIS 72

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Tax title — Unseated land — Improvements by intruders.</p> <p>A tract of unseated land may be severed by an intruder or by operation of law, and when its entirety is once destroyed, a part may be seated and a part unseated, but the intention of an intruder will not destroy its entirety unless that intention is evidenced by an open and notorious act, such as marking the extent of his claim upon the ground, thereby indicating to the owner and to the public how far his possession extends.</p> <p>It is not enough that the settler’s claim as to acreage is defined in the absence of a demarcation of boundaries by a survey, or by marks on the ground or by fences built or in some other visible and notorious way; failing such evidence of demarcation the improvement has the effect of seating the whole tract and a subsequent sale of a portion of the tract, for taxes, as unseated land is void.</p> <p>Tax sale — Unseated land — Evidence.</p> <p>Where the severance of an intruder’s settlement has been effected by deed thereafter the residue of the tract might be assessed and sold as unseated land and, when the case turns on whether in fact it was unseated evidence that at the time of bringing suit (1880) it was all woodland, and from the appearance and character of the land, it had never been cleared, while it might not conclusively prove that it was unseated at the time of the imposition of taxes (1856) for which sale was made, yet it would have a tendency in that direction, and would be proper for the jury’s consideration.</p> <p>Tax title — Unseated land — Identification—Evidence.</p> <p>In a question whether the land assessed and sold is the land in controversy, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and a jury has no more right to infer the fact than the court.</p> <p>An assessment, however, is not required to contain in itself all theeir- ’ cumstances which are necessary and sufficient to identify the land without recourse to other evidence. It must be a “