Case ID: scl_18/html/0319-02.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

Sarah Plantt v. John W. Payne.
    Proof that defendant in dower went into possession under one, to whom the husband of demandant had conveyed, is prima facie evidence of the seizin of the husband.
    A summons in dower lies against any one in possession of the land, whether the title is in himself or in another.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Newberry, Spring Term, 1831.
    This was a summons in dower, directed to a defendant in possession of the land, claimed to be subject to dower. The demandant gave in evidence a conveyance from her husband to one Maxwell; and proved that defendant went into possession, under a bond to make titles, from Maxwell. The presiding Judge rejected evidence of the admissions of defendant, that he claimed under Maxwell; and ordered a nonsuit, on the ground, that according to the evidence the legal estate was in Maxwell, anid not in the defendant. The demandant moved to set aside the nonsuit.
   O’Neall, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The proof in this case was, that the husband of the demand-ant conveyed to Maxwell, and that the defendant was in possession under a bond for titles from Maxwell. This shewing was prima facie sufficient to establish the seizin of the husband. The legal presumption is, when one takes a conveyance of land from another, that he knows the grantor is legally seized of it. It may however be shown, that he was a mere trustee, and conveyed to execute }jís trust, and his seizin thus proved to be such, that his w*fe could not be endowed of the land; or if it should appear from the deed itself, that it was a mere quit claim, it would be no evidence of seizin. After it was shown, that the husband conveyed to Maxwell, and that the defendant was in under that title, whether by his own admissions, or by Maxwell’s bond for titles, the same presumption of seizin in the husband would arise against him, which would arise against Maxwell himself.

Act of 1786, P. h. 408.

Fair, for the motion.

Pope, contra.

The summons in dower may be issued against any one in possession of the land; and in this case whether the title was in 01. tjle defendant, was perfectly immaterial. The only question is, was the demandant’s husband legally seized of the land 1 If he was, she was intitled to the writ of admeasurement of dower, against the terretenánt, as well as the tenant in fee. The motion to set aside the nonsuit is therefore granted.