
    The Proprietors of Township Number Six versus Theodore Jones.
    A grant of land by the General Court of the late Province, although depending upon the approbation of the Crown, which was never obtained, conveyed a seizin to the grantees, sufficient to operate as a bar to a real action under the statute of limitations.
    This was a writ of entry of the demandants’ own seizin within thirty years of a parcel of land in the town of Ellsworth.
    
    * The tenant as to a part of the demanded premises [*335] pleaded the general issue, and disclaimed as to the residue.
    The cause was tried at the sittings here after the last June term, before the present Chief Justice.
    
    In support of the action the demandants produced a resolve of the General Court of the late Province of Massachusetts Bay, passed March 2d, 1762, granting to David Marsh and others ten townships of land on certain conditions ; also resolves of the legislature of the Commonwealth, passed March 17th, 1785, July 8th and November 17th, 1786, and June 25th, 1789 ; which resolves contained conditional confirmations of the said original grant, so far as relates to the township numbered six, under which grants the demandants claim to derive their title to the demanded premises.
    The tenant, on his part, proved that Benjamin Milliken took possession of a tract of land, in which the demanded premises were included, in the year 1767, and built a dwelling-house thereon, in which he lived for six or seven years, when he built a new house, standing on the land he had so taken possession of, but on a part of it not ly ing within township Number Six, and that he continued to occupy the said land, living in said new dwelling-house, until the year 1779, when he removed into the British dominions, leaving the said house and land in the care of one Isaac Lord, his agent. The said Lord occupied the same until one Nathan Jones levied an execution upon the said lands as the property of Millikin, in 1784. The said Nathan Jones conveyed the same to the tenant by his deed dated August 25th, 1785 ; in which year the tenant removed into the said town.
    The demandants produced the copy of a deed from Monsieur and Madame De Gregoire to the present tenant, dated December 13th, 1788, in consideration of five dollars, and reciting that the said Theodore was a settler on the lands afterwards described, releasing to him one hundred acres of land, in which the demanded premises were included,in conformity to the resolve of the General Court of said Commonwealth, passed the 29th day of June, 1787.”
    [*336] * The counsel for the tenant contended" that he had. acquired a title, either by disseizin or as a settler, sufficient to defeat the claim of the demandants to the demanded premises.
    The verdict was taken for the tenant, by consent, subject to tb« opinion of the Court on the foregoing facts ; and if the Court should be of opinion, that, on the above facts, the demandants were, by law, entitled to maintain their action, or if they were bound to show, or could show, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they had acquired a right to township Number Six from the original grantees named in the resolves of March 2d, 1762, and March 17th, 1785, then the verdict was to be set aside, and the cause was to be committed to a jury, to estimate the value of the premises defended, and of the improvements thereon, and the title of the demandants on such trial was not to be disputed. But, if the Court should be of opinion that the action is not maintainable on the foregoing facts, with the proposed additional proof, judgment was to be entered on the verdict.
    Mellen, for the demandants.
    Wilde, for the tenant.
   Parker, C. J.

The statute of limitations of real actions is a bar to the claim of the demandants. The possession of Millikin, in 1767, has been regularly continued down to the present tenant by lawful conveyances. Although absent from the country, he kept possession by his agent, with very little interruption, until 1784, when Nathan Jones levied bis execution upon the demanded premises ; and from that time they have been in the actual occupation of the said Nathan, or the present tenant, to whom he conveyed them. Thus a continued possession, adverse to the proprietors, for forty-five years, is fully proved. And the seizin of proprietors, upon which they can maintain an action, must be proved to have been had within thirty years.

To avoid this obvious difficulty, however, the demandants have endeavoured to commence their title as late as the year 1795, and then alleging that the Commonwealth was the * owner [* 337 ] until that time, they infer that no disseizin could have taken place before, and that since that period a sufficient time to bar them of their claim has not elapsed.

But their title commenced in 1762, by the grant of the provincial legislature, which, although depending upon the approbation of the Crown, which was never obtained, conveyed a seizin to the proprietors ; and the resolves of the legislature, after the Revolution, both in terms and legal effect, amounted to a confirmation of a defeasible title before existing. Their seizin, therefore, commenced in 1762 ; and, being disseized in 1767, and never afterwards having reinstated themselves by entry or otherwise, they cannot recover in this action.

Judgment on the verdict. 
      
      
        Stat. 1786. - 13.
     