Pringle v. Gaw
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ejectment. THE plaintiff, Eliza Pringle, was the widow, and the other plaintiffs were the children of John Pringle, deceased, who died intestate, under whom they claimed title to the premises for which this ejectment was brought. The cause was tried before Duncan, J., and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the widow could support an ejectment: and if she could not, whether judgment could be rendered for the children alone.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J.
Bythe common law, it is well established, that if the widow’s claim be in the nature of dower, an ejectment will not lie before assignment. She is not seised of an undivided third part with the heirs. Hutton, 18. Hob. 181. Ejectment is a possessory action; and it is certain she cannot hold the possession against the heir. She is not seised until assignment, of an undivided third part. The widow and heir, or heirs, are neither tenants in common, joint-tenants, nor co-parceners. Sheaffe v. 0‘Niel, 9 Mass. Rep. 13. Our intestate acts have not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sheafe v. O'NeilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Welch v. LindoSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bratton v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Galbraith v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Brown v. AdamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Hinckle v. RiffertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Kreider v. Kreider, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1836