Case ID: scl_18/html/0116-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Crosby v. Polly Floyd.
    In trespass to try titles, if one, alleging himself to be the real owner of the land, comes in under the rule of Court, he may shew title in himself, and defend the possession of his tenant: But he is not intitled to the privileges of an original defendant to the action ; nor is the plaintiff driven by the substitution, to the necessity of producing any further, or other evidence, than wouid have intitled him to a recovery against the original defendant, until the alleged owner shews title paramount.
    88th Rule ot Court.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Chester, Fall Term, 1830.
    In trespass to try titles, upon affidavit by the defendant, that she held as tenant of her children, his Honor ordered that the children “ have leave to enter their names on the proceedings as defendants, and also to make such defence as if they had been original defendants in the action.” The plaintiff now moved to rescind this order.
    Williams, for the motion.
    The plaintiff claims under the defendant by title from the sheriff, and the defendant is estopped by the deed of the sheriff from shewing title paramount in third persons. O’Neal v. Duncan, 4 M’C. 246. Now third persons cami0t’ ^y coming in under the rule, put the plaintiff in a worse situation, change his rights in the action, or throw difficulties in the way of his recovery: Such was not the intention of the rule, although it is expressed, perhaps, in indefinite language.- M’Kie v. Garlington. 3 M’C. 276.
    Eaves, contra.
    
    The order complained of is in the precise terms of the rule of Court, and there is no room for construction. In M’Kie v. Garlington, the party coming in was not required to shew title in himself, although the original defendant disclaimed: the jury found against the plaintiff, on the weakness of his own title, and the Court refused to open the verdict.
   O’Neall J.

The terms of this order are not warranted by the rule of Court: The object was to let in the real owner to defend the possession of his tenant; not to subject the plaintiff to inconvenience or loss, or change his rights in the action. This was distinctly said in M’Kie v. Garlington. The Court possesses no power to admit new parties, clothed with the privileges of original defendants. The owner may come in and defend the case in the place of the defendant, and shew a title in himself; but the Court has no authority to permit him to go beyond this, or subject the plaintiff to the necessity of producing other or further evidence, than would have intitled him to a recovery against the original defendant, until the party coming in l;as shewn a title out of the defendant, and in himself. Let the order be modified.

Johnson J. and Harper J. concurred.

Order modified.