
    Creigh and others against Wilson and another.
    In Error
    THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Armstrong county.
    The plaintiffs, Creigh and others, brought an ejectment in the (£ourt below for.358| acres qfland* On the trial, the defendants ; offered evidence for. the purpose of availing them? selves ..of the benefit of .the,, act of assembly, of the 3d, Aprils 1804, directing the mode, of spiling unseated lands, for taxes¿ Thé 3d section of. this act provides,,that “no action for the “ recovery of land sold for .taxes shall lie, unless .the same “be brought-within five years, after, the sale thereof, for “ taxes, as aforesaid. Provided always, that where the own- “ er, or'owners of such lands sold as aforesaid, shall .at the; “time of such sale be minor,, or minors, or insane, and resid- “ ing within the United States, five years after such disabili- “ ty is removed shall be allowed such person, or persons, “ their heirs or legal representatives, to bring their suit or ac- “ tion for recovery of the lands so sold ; but. where the reco-. “ very is effected in such case, the value of the improvements “ made on the lands so sold, after the sale thereof, shall be “ ascertained by the jury trying the action for recovery, and “ paid by the person or persons recovering the same, before “he, she, or they shall obtain possession of the lands so “recovered.” . -
    
      A purchaser of lands sold for arrearages of taxes under the act of 3d April, 1804, is entitled by the 3d section to the value of his improvements, in all cases, as well where the land is owned by others, as where it is the property of minors and insane persons.
    
      In order to introduce parol evidence of the value , of the improvements .made by them on the land, the defendants offered in evidence a deed from the sheriff of Westmoreland county for the land in dispute, which stated that the land was sold for arrearages of taxes, with indorsements of conveyances from the vendee to the defendants,; to which deed and conveyances the plaintiffs objected ; but they were admitted, by the Court,- and an exception taken. , '
    The defendants offered the testimony of witnesses to shew the extent and value of the improvements made by them on the land, in order that they might by ascertained by the jury. To this testimony the plaintiffs objected; but it was admitted by the Court, and an exception taken. The jury ascertained the value of the improvements to be 350 dollars, for which sum judgment was given for the defendants. It appears that the action was brought within five years after the sheriff’s sale; and that the plaintiffs were neither minors nor insane.
    
      A. W. Foster, for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended that there could be no claim for improvements in this case. The claim for improvements is confined to the cases' of minors, or insane persons residing within the United States ; these have five years for bringing suit, after their disability is removed. Even in such cases, there must be some- foundation laid for the sheriff’s sale. The tax must have been assessed^ and a warrant issued to the sheriff by the commissioners. The sheriff’s deed is not-sufficient, nor even prima facie evidence, that the land was.sold for taxes, and that ought to appear. If tlie sheriff sold without a warrant, or without "any tax laid, the owner of the land would not be limited to five years. It is against the principles of the common law that a purchaser of a bad title should be allowed for his improvements. It is unjust to make a man pay for improvements made against his consent; when they may be of no value to him, or such as he did not desire. The purchaser could not know whether the owner was a minor or insane; and therefore it was 'reasonable, that if the purchaser went on to make improvements after of five years he should receive their value.
    
      Ayres, contra.
    The deed of the sheriff was evidencé at all events, because it concerned the same land. It was evidence, also, because it shewed that the land had been sold for taxes. It is extremely difficult to prove a legal assessment, and in the present instance it was not in the power of the defendant. As to the construction of the 3d section, the words “ the re- “ covery” are to be referred to a recovery in either of the cases mentioned before, viz. in case of adults or minors. A contrary construction puts minors and insane persons in a worse condition than persons subject to no disability. The jury in the present case took into consideration the profits made by the purchaser, and deducted them from the value of the improvements.
   Tilghman C. J.

This is an ejectment for a tract of land in Westmoreland county. On the trial it was confessed, that the title had been in the plaintiffs, until the land was sold for taxes by the sheriff, under which sale the defendant claims. But the counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the admission of the sheriff’s deed in evidence, because it had not been proved that the tax had been laid according to law, or that the commissioners had issued a warrant to the sheriff commanding him to make sale of the land. They objected also to the admission of evidence to show the value of the improvements made by the defendant subsequent to the sale by the sheriff. On' both these points the Court decided in favour of the defendant, and exceptions were taken to their opinions.

The questions both depend on the construction of the 3d section of the act “ directing the mode of selling unseated “lands for taxes,” passed the 3d April, 1804, (4 Sm. Laws, 202); In that section it is enacted, that “ rio action for the H recovery of land sold for taxes shall .lie, unless the same be “ brought within five years after the sale thereof for taxes as' “ aforesaid. Provided always, that where the owner or own- “ ers of such lands sold as aforesaid, shall at the time of such “ sale be minor, or minors, or insane, and residing within the “United States ; five-years after such disability is removed “ shall be allowed such person or persons, their heirs or legal “ representatives, to bring their suit or action for recovery of “ the lands so sold; but where the recovery is effected., in such case the value of the improvements made on the lands so “ sold, after the sale thereof, shall be ascertained by the jury “ trying the action for recovery, and paid by the person or “ persons recovering the same, before he, she, or they, shall “ obtain possession of the lands so recovered.” In the present case the owners of the land were neither minors or insane. The case then is narrowed to the single question, whether the purchaser of lands thus circumstanced, is entitled to an allowance for the value of his improvements, because if he is, he has a right to give the sheriff’s deed in evidence, in order to shew that the land was sold for taxes, whether the taxes were laid according to law or not. Indeed the allowance for improvements can scarcely take effect in cases when the proceedings were according to law, because in such cases the owner of the land could not recover at all, and the purchaser would hold both land and improvements. The act of assembly was intended for the encouragement of purchasers of lands sold for taxes, by assuring to them at all events the value of their improvements. This encouragement was thought necessary, because it had been found by repeated trial's, that scarcely in any instance had the proceedings been so conducted by the public officers, as to stand, the test of % judicial inquiry. If this was the main object of the law, as I am well satisfied that it was, there is no reason why the value of the improvements should be allowed in the case of minors or insane.persons, more than in any other case. Indeed it would be most extraordinary if the allowance were restricted to such cases,because,supposing that it is an injuryto the owners of the land; (which is assumed, and truly assumed in the argument of the plaintiffs) it would follow that the proviso places minors and insane persons in a worse situation than others, although it was intended for their benefit. There is no way of avoiding this absurdity, but by giving, the words “ zvherc the recovery is effected,” a general reference to all cases of land .sold for taxes. I see no objection to such a construction ; so far from straining the expressions, it gives them the meaning which they naturally bear; for being placed in the conclusion of a sentence, in the preceding part of which had been mentioned, not only the sale of land belonging to minors, but also to adults, the reference should be understood as extending to recoveries in all the cases before mentioned. I am therefore of opinion that the Court of Common Pleas was right, both in admitting the evidence of the sheriff’s deed, and of the value of the improvements, consequently the judgment should be affirmed.

Yeates J.

not having been present at the argument, delivered no opinion.

Brackenridge J. concurred.

Judgment affirmed.  