1782.
It was ſaid in the courſe of this cauſe, that no act of parliament made in England, previous to the ſettlement of the Province of Pennſylvania, ſhall extend to the province, unleſs directed to be ſo extended either by the acts of aſſembly, adjudications of courts, or eſtabliſhed uſage; and, therefore, the ſtatute 32. H. 8. c. 9. againſt embracery, does not extend here; but the ſtatute of limitations 32. H. 8. c. 2. does. An act of aſſembly 1 St. Laws, 88. proves this doctrine.
M’Kean, C. J. in his charge to the jury, laid down the following poſitions:
The recital of one deed in another deed, is no evidence but againſt the party claiming under it. Vaugh. 74. Gilb. L. E, 99.
The ſtatute of 32 H. 8. c. 9. againſt embracery, does not make void the contract; notwithſtanding the caſes in 1 Hawk 249. Carth 251. 2 Blac. 290; for thoſe caſes extend only to contracts, where no penalties are inflicted.
The ſtatute of 32. H. 8. c. 9. is not in force in Pennſylvania ; nor is the 21 Jac. 1. c. 16; but the ſtatute of limitations of 32 H. 8. c. 2. is in force here.[1] This ſtate has had her government above a hundred years; and the ſtatute of embracery has never been extended either by law, or practice, during that period. It is the opinion of the court, however, that the common law of England has always been in force in Pennſylvania; that all ſtatutes made in Great-Britain before the ſettlement of Pennſylvania, have no force here, unleſs they are convenient and adapted to the circumſtances of the country; and that all ſtatutes made ſince the ſettlement of Pennſylvania, have no force here, unleſs the colonies are particularly named. The ſpirit of the act of aſſembly paſſed in 1718 ſupports the opinion of the court.
The ſtatute of limitations, 32 H. 8. c. 2. has always been received in Pennſylvania. Fifty years poſſeſſion has not been the rule; but it is agreeable to the practice that ſixty years poſſeſſion ſhould be a bar.
An ejectment is almoſt the only action for trying the title to lands in this ſtate.
The recitals, of, or, in deeds, with reſpect to a pedigree are evidence.
A bare perception of profits will not ouſt a tenant in common; and for the ſtatute of limitations to operate as a bar, the proſſeſſion muſt be adverſe.
An interlineation, if made after the execution of a deed, will avoid it, though in an immaterial point; nor is it to be preſumed to have been made before; the preſumption is the contrary, unleſs otherwiſe proved.
Verdict for the plaintiff, as to one third of the lot in queſtion, and for the defendant, as to the other two thirds.
- ↑ See ant p. 15. Bœhm et al. verſus Engle.
