Doolittle v. RobertsonDoolittle v. Robertson
Thе appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted the statutory action of ejectment to recover certain lands, in the possession .of and clаimed by the defendants. The facts are agreed upon, and they prеsent a single question of law for review. Elizabeth Brown, the mother of plaintiffs, went into possession of the land tinder a parol gift from her father in 1853. In 1868 hе executed her a deed to the land, with covenants of warranty, аnd she remained in open, notorious and adverse possession of the land as her own until the date of her death, which occurred» in 1883; and hеr husband, as such, continued in possession until the date of his death, in 1888. In the yeаrs 1857 and 1858, some of the plaintiffs and the ancestors of the others, who wеre children and heirs at law, by warranty deed conveyed the lands to Jоhn J. Mays, under whom the defendants claim. It will be seen that at the time of the execution of the deed to John J. Mays, the grantors, now plaintiffs, were nоt in possession of the lands, and, it seems, have never been in possеssion, nor was their vendee until after the year 1888. The legal proposition is whether the title and interest inherited by. plaintiffs from their mother by virtue of their deed to John J. Mays enured .to him. The facts show that by their deed they sold and covey - ed, not such interest as they may have then owned, but the land, with сovenants of general warranty. Are they estopped from assеrting an after acquired title under the facts of the case? In no State perhaps has the rule been more rigidly adhered to than in this, “that when оne sells land to which he has no right, with warranty of title, and he afterwards acquires a good title, it passes instantly to his vendee, and he is estopped from denying that he had no right at the time of the sale.” This rule has never been so applied, as to prevent the grantor from re-acquiring title from his grantee by pur
Reversed and remanded.