Chapin v. Freeland
1886 Mass. LEXIS 332, 8 N.E. 128, 142 Mass. 383 (1886)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the statute of limitations for an action to recover personal property has run, the original owner's title to that property is extinguished, and title vests in the adverse possessor. This prevents the original owner from later reclaiming the property through a lawsuit or by self-help.
Facts:
- In 1867, the counters at issue belonged to the defendant, Freeland.
- That year, a man named Warner took the counters without Freeland's knowledge or authority, moved them to his shop, and nailed them to the floor.
- On January 2, 1871, Warner mortgaged the shop premises, including the counters, to one DeWitt.
- Warner, and subsequently DeWitt, held adverse possession of the counters for a period longer than the six-year statute of limitations for a replevin action.
- In April 1879, DeWitt's executors foreclosed on the mortgage and sold the premises to the plaintiffs.
- In 1881, Freeland learned the counters were on the plaintiffs' property, entered the premises, and took them back.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs brought an action of replevin against the defendant, Freeland, in a state trial court to recover two counters.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant, Freeland.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on a bill of exceptions, challenging the trial court's legal rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the running of the statute of limitations for an action to recover personal property (replevin) extinguish the original owner's title, thereby preventing them from later retaking the property through self-help?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
Yes, the statute of limitations extinguishes title. When the statute of limitations bars an original owner's action to recover personal property, it extinguishes the owner's title and transfers it to the adverse possessor. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations affects not only the remedy but the underlying right to the property itself. Therefore, if the original owner can no longer bring a legal action to recover the property, they cannot achieve the same result through the indirect means of self-help. The court famously stated, 'If he cannot replevy, he cannot take with his own hand. A title which will not sustain a declaration will not sustain a plea.' Consequently, a purchaser from one whose possession is protected by the statute, like the plaintiffs, acquires a valid title superior to that of the original owner.
Dissenting - Field, J.
No, the statute of limitations does not extinguish title. The statute of limitations for personal actions only bars the legal remedy (the lawsuit) and does not extinguish the underlying property right or title. The dissent argued for a distinction between statutes of limitation for real property, which extinguish title, and those for personal property, which historically only bar the action. Under this view, Freeland remained the true owner of the counters even after her right to sue had expired. As the rightful owner, she was permitted to peaceably retake possession of her property wherever she found it. The dissent concluded that extending the doctrine of adverse possession to chattels was a significant change in the law that should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This case is foundational for establishing the doctrine of adverse possession of chattels in American law, aligning the treatment of personal property with that of real property. By holding that the statute of limitations is substantive rather than merely procedural, the decision provides finality and certainty in property ownership. It solidifies the principle that possession, if maintained adversely for the statutory period, can ripen into full legal title. This precedent impacts property law by clarifying that once a claim is time-barred, the original owner loses all rights, including the right of self-help recaption.
