Case Name: Chandler v. Phillips
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793-03
Citations: 1 Root 546
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chandler v. Phillips.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Chandler v. Phillips.
Possession" doth not begin to run against tbe remainderman until after tbe death of thei particular tenant.
AotioN of ejectment for a farm of land, lying in Woodstock. Plea — No wrong or disseisin. . Issue to tbe jury.
Tbe case was — Moses Chandler purchased tbe farm of one Kingsley and continued in the possession of it until A. D. 1764, when be. gave up the possession of it to bis father Joshua Chandler. On tbe 8th day of February A. D. 1764, Joshua the fattier gave a deed of the north half of his home farm to his son Moses. On the 30th of September A. D. 1767, Joshua the father made his will, and devised the farm in question, as follows, viz. The farm, I purchased of my son Moses by deed dated the 8th of February A. D. 1764, I give the use and improvement of, to my beloved wife during her widowhood, and the remainder of said estate I give to my two grandsons, John and William, sons of my son Joshua Chandler, in fee-simple. The deed of the farm referred to in Joshua the father’s will, was not upon record nor to be found. The father possessed it by a part of his family residing upon it till his death, which happened some time in A. D. 1768. His widow went into the possession with her son Joshua — who having purchased of his mother her life in said estate for £40, in A. D. 1777 he gave a.deed of it to one Broadway, and Broadway conveyed it to Aldridge, and took from him a bond to indemnify him against the note he gave for it to Joshua Chandler. Said Joshua went to¡ the British, and said note was never paid. Aldridge sold the farm to the defendant for £ who went into possession in A. D. 1780. Mrs. Chandler, the widow died, and this suit was commenced within fifteen years from her death.
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
There is every reason to suppose that there was a deed given! of said farm, by said Moses to his father, on the 8th of February A. D. 1764, which is referred to in the father's will. But it is clear, that from that time said farm was claimed and possessed' by the father, and under title derived from him, until the death of his widow; that there was no possession that had run against the remaindermen said John and William until then, and since that event .fifteen years had not elapsed before the commencement of this action.