
    Beers et. al. vs. Beers.
    To support action for waste, nr.dvr tlio statute, against* original tenant for life, it must appear that ho suffered or committed the waste while he was in possession.
    Error to St. Clair Circuit.
   Opinion ly

G-raves, J.

Plaintiffs in error brought action in the court below against Mrs. Beers. It appeared on the trial that one Horace Beers died in February, 1850, seized of the premises described'in the record, and on which, at.that time, and until after the sale made by defendant to one Kean, there was a mill,. Defendant in error is the widow of Horace Beers, and at his death became tenantfor life by force of the statute. In 1862, Mrs. Beers conveyed her life estate by deed to Kean, and gave-him authority to remove the mill, and he removed it. And finally the premises were sold for the taxes of 1863.

Plaintiffs aré the heirs of Horace Beers. The acts of waste relied on were that Mrs Beers caused the mill to he removed, and suffered the premises to he sold for taxes. Upon these facts the Circuit Judge .charged that the plaintiffs could not recover. The question raised by this ruling is whether the action could be maintained against the original tenant for life for matters which occurred after she had conveyed all her interest, and when she was not shown to be in possession.

Held, That to support action of case under the statute against the original tenanit for life, it must appear that he committed, or suffered the waste, while he was in possession. The original tenant for life is not liable for his own acts of waste, even after conveyance, much less for the acts of the person to whom the transfer has been made.

Judgment of the Court below affirmed with costs.  