Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs
52 Va. 172, 11 Gratt. 172 (1854)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in an ejectment action may recover possession of land from a defendant who is a mere intruder by showing prior peaceful possession, even if the plaintiff cannot prove perfect legal title. The law protects a peaceful prior possession against a subsequent entry by a wrongdoer without title.
Facts:
- Mrs. Lewis was in peaceful possession of a parcel of land at the time of her death.
- The plaintiffs are the heirs of Mrs. Lewis.
- There was no proof that the plaintiffs took actual physical possession of the land immediately after Mrs. Lewis's death.
- In 1842, after Mrs. Lewis died, the defendant entered and took possession of the premises.
- The defendant entered the land without any title or legal authority.
- The only evidence of any claim by the defendant was a surveyor's certificate of entry dated December 1844, which was well after he had already taken possession.
Procedural Posture:
- The heirs of Mrs. Lewis filed an action of ejectment against the defendant in a trial court to recover possession of the land.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the state's highest appellate court.
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 a plaintiff in an ejectment action have a right to recover land from a defendant who entered without title, based solely on the prior peaceful possession of the plaintiff or their ancestor?
Opinions:
Majority - Daniel, J.
Yes. A plaintiff can recover in an ejectment action against a mere intruder based on prior peaceful possession, which stands in the place of title in such a dispute. While the general rule is that a plaintiff must recover on the strength of their own title, there is a well-established exception for cases of intrusion by a stranger without title onto a peaceable possession. The court, citing English and American precedents, reasons that it is a 'natural principle of justice' that one in possession has the right to maintain it against a wrongdoer. To allow an intruder to defend his wrongful possession by showing defects in the prior possessor's title would 'invite disorderly scrambles for the possession.' The court further held that upon the death of an ancestor in possession, the law presumes the heir is also in possession until that presumption is rebutted. Because the defendant was a mere intruder, this constructive possession by the heirs is sufficient to maintain the action.
Dissenting - Lee, J.
The opinion text notes that Judge Lee dissented but provides no reasoning.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception in property law to the strict rule that an ejectment plaintiff must recover on the strength of their own title. By allowing recovery based on prior possession against a mere trespasser, the decision elevates the legal status of peaceful possession itself, treating it as a form of relative title. This precedent strengthens the hand of possessors who may have technical flaws in their chain of title, protecting them from being ousted by wrongdoers. The ruling discourages self-help and forcible entry by affirming that the legal system will restore the prior peaceful possessor rather than allowing an intruder to benefit from their wrongful act.
Unlock the full brief for Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs