Case Name: Lessee of George Miller against John Wilson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1798-04
Citations: 2 Yeates 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lessee of George Miller against John Wilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
Lessee of George Miller against John Wilson.
In ejectment against a purchaser of the lands of tenant in tail under commissioner’s sales, the heir in tail after the death of the immediate devisee need only show the will under which the lands were held, and is not obliged to produce the previous title.
Ejectment for lands in Salisbury township.
The lessor of the plaintiff claimed the lands in question under the will of his great-grand-father, dated 31st March 1742; who devised the same to John Miller, his son, in general tail. John Miller after his father’s death, constantly resided on the lands, and died about four years ago.
The defendant claimed 49|- acres, part thereof under a deed from the commissioners of Lancaster county, dated 2d December 1788, in consideration of 671. The same had been advertised as the property of said John Miller, for non-payment of taxes on the 12th August 1788, and sold on the 24th November following.
The defendant insisted, that the previous title to the will should be shown in evidence by the plaintiff.
Mr. Hopkins, pro quer.
Messrs. Kittera and C. Smith, pro def.

Opinion:
Sed per our.
The defendant has affirmed the right of the grandfather, tenant in tail, by purchasing from the commissioners the lands as his property. The plaintiff has shown under what title and in what manner his grand-father came into possession of the lands, and that his interest therein ceased with his death, the estate then becoming vested in the plaintiff. Unless the defendant can show some other right under which the grand-father held the lands the plaintiff is under no necessity of going into the previous title. The commissioners having advertised the lands as the property of John Miller, could only sell his right and interest therein.
Verdict for the plaintiff.