Den ex dem. Mackey v. Mackey
Sussex County Superior Court
The title was admitted to be in the father of the lessors of the plaintiff. The lessor derived title from his father. It appeared in evidence, that the father about fifteen years ago, put the defendant, who was his brother, into possession.
Read the full summary
The title was admitted to be in the father of the lessors of the plaintiff. The lessor derived title from his father. It appeared in evidence, that the father about fifteen years ago, put the defendant, who was his brother, into possession. That the place, at the time the defendant went in possession, was improved; that the defendant had built a house and improved about half the land; had planted an orchard which was beginning to bear; that the father had been dead about nine years, and' the defendant had remained in possession ever since, improving the premises. The defendant offered to…
1Opinion of the Court
[*«] Pennington, J.
— It is certainly a hard case to turn a man out of possession, circumstanced like the defendant, at any season of the year, and saddle him with a bill of cost without notice; he went into [308] possession by the consent of the owner, has continued in it fifteen years, improving the premises, under a reasonable expectation that he was to have it for life. Some of the cases requiring notice have gone on the ground of reservation of rent; but I do not know that this is the exclusive rule; and if it is, may not the improvement put on the premises come in place of the rent as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allegheny v. ShoenbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853