
    Wm. Giles, et al., vs. Amelia Pratt.
    The widow of a deceased occupant of land, may set up a title in herself by her own possession after her husband’s death, though he in his lifetime acknowledged that he held under another.
    The acceptance of a deed poll by one in the possession of land, does not preclude the grantee from denying the title of the grantor, and relying upon her own possession.
    A parol understanding by the plaintiff in execution who bought the defendant’s land, that it should be reconveyed on payment of debt and costs for which it was sold; carried into effect after the death of the defendant, by a conveyance to a third ¡person, by him to defendant’s son, and by him immediately to his mother, who had remained in possession; does not vest such an interest in the son to subject the land to the lien of an execution against him.
    TRIED BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT YORK, FALL TERM, 1836.
    This was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of eight hundred and seventy-four acres of land. The plaintiffs were the residuary devisees of one Thomas McDaniel. The land formerly belonged to William Pratt, and was sold as his property at sheriff’s sale, on the 3d of November, 1817, by virtue of au execution in favor of William C. Davis. There was some arrangement or understanding between tbe parties, that on the payment of the money due on the execution, the land should belong to Pratt. The costs of the case were paid by Davis, at the time of tbe sale, and tbe possession of the land remained unaltered. Pratt died in June, 1819, and on the 5th of July, in the same year, the sheriff conveyed to Davis; on the 19th of the same month, Davis conveyed to Benjamin Dowdle. Eor the year 1820, John Pratt, a son, and the administrator of Wm. Pratt, paid rent to Dowdle for the land ; and on the 1st of January, 1821, Dowdle conveyed it, with a warranty of title against himself and his heirs merely, to John Pratt, who on the next day conveyed to the defendant, who was his mother. From the death of William Pratt to the time of the trial, the defendant remained in the uninterrupted possession. From 1819 to 1821, John Pratt, who was the eldest son, lived with his mother, and some of her hands worked on the land. When he conveyed to his mother, a judgment by sum. pro. bad been recovered against * him as administrator of bis father, by Joseph Gist and William B. Earr. The execution as amended, was for the debt and costs, against the “ goods, chattels, lands and tenements of' William Pratt, deceased, si, Sc., et si non, tunc de bonispropriis1'1 for the costs. It was lodged on the 10th of November, 1820, and on the 12th of February, 1821, was levied on the land as the property of John Pratt, and purchased by Thomas McDaniel for thirty dollars. The sheriff conveyed to him on the 14th of April, 1821, and McDaniel died in 1826. The action was commenced on the 26th of February, 1831, to which time some of the residuary devisees of McDaniel were yet minors.
    From the facts of the case, his Honor was of. opinion that William Pratt died in possession of the land, and under a parol contract to pay to Davis the recovery of Davis against himself, and that thereupon the land was to belong to him ; that at his death, no titles had been executed by the sheriff to Davis, but that subsequently to his death they were executed, and Davis immediately conveyed to Dowdle for the amount of the debt, interest añd costs, and he again to John Pratt for the same, and that he instantly conveyed to his mother, who had all along -been in possession. He thought the jury might presume that the conveyance to John Pratt was nothing more than a fulfilment of his father’s contract with Davis, and that John Pratt’s conveyance to his mother was for the same purpose; and that if this were so, the lien of the execution against John Pratt would not attach upon the land.
    He also instructed the jury, that if they believed from the facts, that the defendant held in her own right from the death of her husband in June, 1819, that then her possessory right would be complete, and would bar the plaintiffs, who were the devisees of McDaniel in June, 1824. That he saw nothing in the case to prevent his possession from being regarded as adverse to the title under which the plaintiffs claimed, unless the jury believed that the defendant derived and claimed title alone under her son John Pratt; and if this were so, they were instructed that they must find for the plaintiffs. They found for the defendant.
    The plaintiffs appealed, on the grounds:
    
      1st. That having shown title under William. C. Davis, who purchased the land at sheriff’s sale as the property of defendant’s deceased husband, and he having acknowledged that he held under Davis, she could not afterwards be permitted to.set up a title in herself by her own possession, after her husband’s death, and Ms Honor should have so ruled.
    2d! That 'it was manifest from the evidence that the defendant held and. claimed the land only under title from her son John Pratt, who claimed under William C. Davis; that John Pratt had previously rented the land, at its full yearly value, from Benjamin Dowdle, — the defendant living with John Pratt at the time, and never claiming title until after the conveyance from John to her.
    3d. That his Honor charged the jury that they might presume that the payment of the purchase money by John Pratt to Benjamin Dowdle, was made as administrator of his father, in fulfilment of a previous contract or understanding between Davis and William Pratt; when there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion, and when in fact it was proved that he made the purchase for himself, and in his own right.
    4th. That there was no evidence that the defendant ever claimed the land as her own, or occupied it as such, until after the conveyance from John Pratt. On the contrary, there was abundant evidence that she held it merely by permission of those under whom the plaintiffs claimed.
    
      Hill, for appellants.
    
      Williams, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

No error in law is perceived by this Court in the instructions of the Judge to the jury. The result of the case is in conformity to the decision made in 2 Hill, 439.

The motion is dismissed.

Butler, J. I think there should have been a new trial in this case.  