Case ID: mass_17/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* Hetty Newhall versus Stephen Saddler
    A person holding lands under a title conceived by him to be good, but which m fact is bad, and being evicted therefrom, has a right to the benefits of the statute of 1807, c. 74, having made improvements on the land from which he is so evicted. 1
    After the default in this case [Vide ante, vol. 16, page 122] the tenant claimed the benefit of the “ Act for the limitation of certain real actions, and for the equitable settlement of certain claims arising in real actions ” ; by which persons holding by virtue of a possession and improvement, are, in certain cases, allowed the increased value of the premises demanded in a real action by virtue of the buildings and improvements made by such tenants or those under whom they may claim.
    The demandant objected to the application of the statute in this action, because Thomas F. Newhall, the eldest son, went into possession under a supposed title, by virtue of the decree of the judge of probate assigning to him the whole real estate of his deceased father, and held the same during his lifetime, under that assignment ; and the present tenant, who made the improvements, held by virtue of his marriage with the widow of the said eldest son, and continued to make payments to the guardian of the demand-ant, in part of the sum ordered by the judge of probate to be paid to her, until March, 1818; and further, that as the said Saddler intermarried with the said widow in March, 1802, and the demand-ant came of age in February, 1812, he might have completed the title under which he held, if he had chosen to perform the candi tians on which that title depended.
    
      Newton, for the demandant.
    
      Lincoln, for the tenant.
    
      
      
        Stat. 1807, e. 74, § 3
    
   By the Court.

It is objected that the tenant is not entitled to the Benefits of the statute, because he was not a disseisor, holding by virtue of possession only, but entered under a supposed title under a decree of the judge of probate. But it having been determined that the decree of the judge was void, it follows that the tenant entered without title, but upon the supposition of a title in his wife, or in her child by her former husband ; and he, therefore, *held by virtue of possession and improve- [*351 ] ment only, within the meaning of the statute; which cannot be so construed, as to operate only in favor of those who knowingly and wilfully enter upon lands belonging to others, as the counsel for the demandant have argued . 
      
      
        [Bacon vs. Callender, 6 Mass. 303.—Shaw Al. vs. Bradstreet, 13 Mass. 241. Knox vs. Hook, 12 Mass. 329.—Runey & Al. vs. Edmands, 15 Mass. 291.—Russell vs. Blake, 2 Pick. 205.—Heath vs. Wells Al., 5 Pick. 140.—Poignard vs. Smith, 6 Pick 172.—Tyler vs. Hammond, 11 Pick. 193.—Ed.]