Breidegam v. Hoffmaster

Where a widow remained in exclusive possession of her husband’s land for more than twenty-one years after his death, declarations that he had devised it to her during widowhood negatived any adverse claim or intention to claim by the Statute of Limitations.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county: No. 46, to July Term 1867. This was an action of ejectment brought, April 10th 1862, by William Breidegam against Samuel Hoffmaster and John W. Burk-hart for a tract of 86 acres of land. The land formerly belonged to John Hassler, who died February 1st 1826, having made his will by which he gave to his wife Susanna Hassler all his personal property. He ordered his “plantation or farm” to remain in his name unsold and in good repair for ever, the annual profits to be paid to his god-children whom he named as long as. they lived, “ and after their death to go to the use of our church.” Susanna Hassler, the widow, died in June 1858, having made'.a will, proved February 4th 1862, by which she gave “all her estate, real and personal,” to the plaintiff, tie, claiming that Mrs. Hassler had obtained a title by the Statute of Limitations to the land in controversy, brought this ejectment against the defendants, who were in possession under the devisees for life of John Hassler. On the trial the plaintiff gave evidence that the widow had occupied the plantation by herself for some years after her husband’s death, and then moved to Reading. After that she rented it to a number of tenants, and maintained the entire management and control of it during her life. There was evidence also that she declared “ that it was her property, and she would do with it what she pleased,” and that “ she always spoke of it as her plantation.” On the part of the defendants there was evidence that the land had been assessed to John Hassler’s estate from the time of his death; also of declarations of Mrs. Hassler, that her husband “ had willed the farm to her as long as she had his name, then to the children they’d held in baptism, and after their death it was to go to Spies’s church.” A number of witnesses testified to declarations by Mrs. Hassler of the same kind. Most or all of these witnesses were strangers to the parties, and unconnected with them in any way. The plaintiff submitted the following points:— “ 1. The possession of Mrs. Hassler and her tenants from 1826 to 1858, as proved by the plaintiff’s witnesses, contains adequate evidence of a title by the Statute of Limitations. “ 2. Nothing in the testimony of the defendants should be taken •to affect the rights of Mrs. Hassler, to withdraw the case from the operation of the statute, or to create a bar to a recovery by the plaintiff.” The court affirmed the 1st point, and on the question presented in it said in the general charge:— “ Under this evidence, if believed, it would be competent for the jury to find such a possession in Mrs. Hassler, as to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff.” As to the 2d point he charged :— “ Upon the 2d point, the court are constrained to refuse the instruction asked by counsel. The question raised by the testimony of the defendants is one of fact, and must be submitted to the jury. If they find that Mrs. Hassler claimed only an estate for life, and during her tenure recognised and admitted the right of the devisees to the property upon her decease, a title could not have been acquired by her under the statute, and she could not, consequently, transmit the property by will to her own devisee.” In his general charge the judge enlarged upon the principle stated in this answer, and applied it to the evidence. The verdict was for the defendant. The plaintiff took out a writ of error and assigned for errors the portion of the charge given above and the answer of the court to his 2d point.