Page images
PDF
EPUB

relief if the case warranted it. Usually the King would refer the petition to his chancellor, the official who acted at that time in the capacity of Secretary to the King. These petitions for relief became so frequent that later in the reign of King Edward I, an ordinance (Bispham's Principles of Equity (6th Ed.) 10) was issued for the purpose of relieving the King from the business of attending petitions addressed directly to him, whereby it was provided that "All petitions touching the seal do come first before the chancellor" and further "if the demands be so great and so much of grace that the chancellor and those others cannot do without the King, then they shall bring them before the King to know his will." Soon the practice of presenting the petition to the chancellor in the first instance became firmly established. As applications increased it became necessary for vice chancellors to be provided and so arose a separate court of justice known as the Court of Chancery or Court of Equity, in which court a suitor who had no adequate remedy in the common law court could get relief. This, therefore, is what is meant by Grotius in the definition above given that equity is the correction of that wherein the law is deficient. The Equity Court has power by injunction to restrain a trespass such as set forth in the example on page 25, and to compel A to pass over the specific painting which he agreed to sell B, and compel Y to return the stream to its original bed. But to the present day consistent to the cause which gave it its origin, the equity court will take jurisdiction of a matter only when the suitor has no adequate remedy at law. As America was colonized by the English people who brought with them their native customs and laws, America inherited both the common law and equity of the Mother Country and retained them after the revolution. Pennsylvania, to be sure, administered her equity under common law forms during the early part of the 19th century, but later the legislature conferred upon the courts of law, equity powers of the English Court of Chancery. And now, while the same judge may sit either as a law judge or equity judge, when he sits as equity judge or chancellor, the practice of the court of equity is strictly adhered to. In some States, New Jersey, e. g., separate courts of law and equity are still maintained, although most of the States as well as England have abolished separate equity courts and like Pennsylvania have conferred equity powers upon the judges of law courts who at certain times sit as chancellors and administer equity according to the equity practice, forms and rules.

Returning now to the question of the difference between a legal title and equitable title, we find that according to the common law the person who had the title to land was the only one recognized. The common law courts would not recognize the right to the title as being in any other person. Equity, on the other hand, being unfettered by the precedents of the common law, recognized rights which the common law would not entertain. E. g., suppose A agreed to sell his land to B, and then subsequently refused to do so. The legal title of course remained in A, but the right to the title was really in B. B in all fairness should have the land upon payment of the purchase price because A agreed to give it to him. Yet B's right to title was not recognized in the common law court. B might recover damages for A's breach of contract, but he could not recover the land. Equity, however, stepped in to correct this deficiency of the law. It recognized the fact that B, although he had no title to the land in the legal sense of the term, nevertheless had a right to have that title transferred to him. So the chancellor compelled A to give title to B and accept the money. equitable title, therefore, is such a title as is recognized by a court of equity while a legal title is such as is recognized by a court of law. Another example of equitable title is a trust. A trust is created by giving title of property to one person to hold for the use of another. In a trust, therefore, the legal title is in one person and the beneficial use or ownership of the property is vested in another. The person who has the legal title is called the trustee. The person for whose benefit the trust exists is called the Cestui que trust. The Cestui que trust has no standing in a court of law, but in a court of equity his right prevails. His title is, therefore, an equitable title.

SECTION IV.

HOW TITLE MAY BE ACQUIRED.

11. May be Acquired in Three Ways.

We have thus considered what title is, and the kinds that exist. We will now consider how title may be acquired and transferred. Blackstone divided the methods of acquiring title to land into two general classes, viz: 1st: Title acquired by Purchase, and, 2d: Title acquired by Descent. For the sake of convenience we will take a subdivision of his first class which he called Title by

Perscription and constitute it a third class, entitled Title by Adverse Possession.

12. Definitions of Title by Descent, Purchase Adverse Possession. 1. Title by Descent is title acquired by hereditary succession. That is to say, such title that is acquired by the heirs of the prior

owners.

2. Title by Purchase we will define as any other method of acquiring title other than by descent or by adverse possession as e. g.: by the owner's act, agreement, will or gift.

3. Title by Adverse Possession is such title as is acquired by holding possession of the property adversely to the owner for twenty-one years.

In order to logically present this book we shall first briefly consider Title by Adverse Possession, then Title by Purchase with the exception of title acquired by will and finally Title by Descent, including title by will.

[blocks in formation]

DEFINITION AND ORIGIN.

13. Origin of Title by Adverse Possession.

The method of acquiring title by adverse possession results from the policy of the law to limit the time for bringing actions to recover property, to a reasonable time. As said by the Supreme Court, "No person ought to be permitted to lie by whilst transactions can be fairly investigated and justly determined until time has involved them in uncertainty and obscurity and then ask for an inquiry (Foulk v. Brown, 2 Watts 215). Accordingly all jurisdictions have fixed a time limit in which actions to determine rights must be begun. In Pennsylvania the time limit is prescribed by a statute commonly called Statute of Limitations. 14. Statute of Limitations in Pennsylvania.

The Statute of Limitations in Pennsylvania relating to land as amended by later acts now provides in substance that actions to determine rights in land must be commenced within twenty-one

years after the right of action accrues. Otherwise such rights are forever barred (Act of Mar. 25, 1785, 2 Sm. L. 300, sec. 2). But persons who are under a disability such as insane, under age, or in prison have nine years longer, in other words those under a disability have thirty years in which to bring their actions from the time it accrues (Act of April 22, 1856, P. L. 532, sec. 1). Title acquired by adverse possession may be recorded. See Act of May 31, 1901, P. L. 352, of which we will treat hereinafter (Par. 23).

What is necessary to gain title by adverse possession.-In order to gain a title by adverse possession the possession must be adverse and hostile to the owner for the period of twenty-one years or thirty years if the owner is under disability as above set forth. What constitutes adverse possession depends, of course, more or less upon the general circumstances of each case. The general rule is laid down by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Hawk v. Senseman, 6 S. & R. 24, wherein it is said that the kind of possession necessary to obtain title against the real owner is, an "actual, continued, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession. The owner does not forfeit his title to the first straggler who sets himself down on his land; but the policy of the law for the sake of quieting men's possessions, confers the possession right itself upon him who has entered under an adverse claim and held a notorious possession and occupation for twenty-one years." By analyzing this definition it will be seen that four requisites are essential to gain a title by adverse possession:

1. The possession must be actual.

2. It must be continuous.

3. It must be visible and notorious.

4. It must be distinct and hostile.

SECTION II.

REQUISITES TO ACQUIRE SUCH TITLE.

15. Possession Must be Actual.

We have seen that the rightful owner has by virtue of his title constructive possession of the land. Therefore, the stranger must take actual possession of the property to oust this constructive possession. Actual possession sufficient to ultimately vest title in the stranger may arise from the following acts: residence on

« PreviousContinue »