Case ID: yeates_1/html/0021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shippen, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of Henry Bowman against Martin Fry.
    Vendees under sheriffs, or auditors under the attachment law, shall not he put to the same proof in ejectment, as in common cases where the debtor has been in possession; the onus probandi shall lie in the adverse party.
    The lessor of the plaintiff by several mesne conveyances showed a title in himself to 12 acres of land, being the premises in question, in Bari township.
    *The defendant proved by William Smith, that dur- r*™ ing his sub-lieutenancy in the militia, he called on L Henry Bowman for his substitute fine, and was told by him that he had sold a piece of land (meaning the land in controversy) to his brother Martin Bowman, and he would pay the fine for him, which was done accordingly; that the said Martin cultivated the lands for some time, and afterwards absconded; that the 12 acres were attached with other lands by the sheriff upon process out of the court of Common Pleas, and publickly sold at vendue as the said Martin’s, no person appearing to claim the same, or making any objection thereto. The deed from the auditor to the defendant for 356^ acres (including the lands in question) dated 3d June, 1786, in consideration of 600I. was also shown to the court and jury.
   Shippen, J.,

in giving his charge, said, the case of a purchaser under a sheriff or auditors by virtue of an attachment, is materially different from the common cases of persons buying lands from individuals, nor does the law expect the same regular titles to be shewn in the former as in the latter instances. It is evident that the debtor keeps his deeds in his own possession, and seldom can they be obtained from him. The policy of the law therefore declares, and it is consistent with the plainest common sense, that wherever the debtor appears to have been in possession of lands, which are after-wards sold by due course of law, that the burthen of the proof shall lie on the person who sues to recover the same; and he shall be put to account how such debtor came into possession, and under what title or pretext thereof, or claim, he obtained such possession, and also shew a notoriety of claim on his part, previous to the sheriff’s sale. Unless this can be done to the satisfaction of the jury, a verdict should be giver against such plaintiff:

Mr. C. Smith, pro quer. Mr. Kittera, pro def.

Which was accordingly given in the present suit.