Frost v. Spitley , 7 S. Ct. 1129 ( 1887 )

121 U.S. 552 (1887)

FROST
v.
SPITLEY.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued April 19, 20, 1887. Decided May 2, 1887. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.

Mr. John L. Webster for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The opinion of the Circuit Court proceeded upon the grounds that Frost's homestead right, as against the contract made by him with Redick in 1870, and the judgment and execution afterwards obtained by Redick on that contract, was governed by the homestead act of Nebraska of 1866, by which no consent of the wife to an alienation of the homestead was required; and that the sale on execution, confirmed by the court, cut off the right of homestead. 5 McCrary, 43. But it is unnecessary to consider the validity of either of those grounds, because, even if they are well taken, Spitley's bill cannot be maintained.

At the time of the sale on execution of Frost's interest in the land, the legal title was, and it still remains, in Durant. Although Frost, under his agreement with Durant and the corporation, and the decree which he had recovered against them, had been entitled to a deed of the land upon the payment of a certain sum of money, he had not paid the money, nor had any deed been delivered to him; so that his title, either by virtue of the agreement and decree, or by virtue of his occupation of the land as a homestead, never was anything more than an equitable title. The sale on execution against him (if valid and effectual) and the deed of the marshal passed only his equitable title to Redick; Redick's payment to Durant of the money unpaid by Frost did not divest Durant of his legal title; and Redick's subsequent conveyance to Spitley could pass no greater right than Redick had. Spitley's title, therefore, at best, is but equitable, and not legal; and Frost, and not Spitley, is in actual possession of the land.

Under the jurisdiction and practice in equity, independently of statute, the object of a bill to remove a cloud upon title, and to quiet the possession of real estate, is to protect the owner of the legal title from being disturbed in his possession, or harassed by suits in regard to that title; and the bill cannot be maintained without clear proof of both possession and legal title in the plaintiff. Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch, 462; Piersoll v. Elliott, 6 Pet. 95; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430. As observed by Mr. Justice Grier in Orton v. Smith, "Those only who have a clear legal and equitable title to land, connected with possession, have any right to claim the interference of a court of equity to give them peace or dissipate a cloud on the title." 18 How. 265. A person out of possession cannot maintain such a bill, whether his title is legal or equitable; for if his title is legal, his remedy at law, by action of ejectment, is plain, adequate and complete; and if his title is equitable, he must acquire the legal title, and then bring ejectment. United States v. Wilson, 118 U.S. 86; Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U.S. 550.

It is possible that one who holds land under grant from the United States, who has done everything in his power to entitle him to a patent, (which he cannot compel the United States to issue to him,) and is deemed the legal owner, so far as to render the land taxable to him by the state in which it lies, may be considered as having sufficient title to sustain a bill in equity to quiet his right and possession. Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. 441, 463; Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 370; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 169. But no such case is presented by the record before us.

In Stark v. Starrs, 6 Wall. 402, the suit was founded on a statute of Oregon, authorizing "any person in possession" to bring the suit; the court, after observing that "his possession must be accompanied with a claim of right, legal or equitable," held that the plaintiff proved neither legal nor equitable title; and consequently the question whether an equitable title only would have been sufficient to maintain the suit was not adjudged. In Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 U.S. 405, the decision was based upon a statute of Indiana, under which, as construed by the Supreme Court of that state, an equitable title was sufficient, either to support or to defeat the suit. Jefferson Railroad v. Oyler, 60 Indiana, 383; Burt v. Bowles, 69 Indiana, 1. See also Grissom v. Moore, 106 Indiana, 296.

A statute of Nebraska authorizes an action to be brought "by any person or persons, whether in actual possession or not, claiming title to real estate, against any person or persons who claim an adverse estate or interest therein, for the purpose of determining such estate or interest, and quieting the title to said real estate." Nebraska Stat. February 24, 1873, Rev. Stat. 1873, p. 882. By reason of that statute, a bill in equity to quiet title may be maintained in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska by a person not in possession, if the controversy is one in which a court of equity alone can afford the relief prayed for. Holland v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15, 25. The requisite of the plaintiff's possession is thus dispensed with, but not the other rules which govern the jurisdiction of courts of equity over such bills. Under that statute, as under the general jurisdiction in equity, it is "the title," that is to say, the legal title, to real estate, that is to be quieted against claims of adverse estates or interests. In State v. Sioux City & Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court of Nebraska said, "Whatever the rule may be as to a party in actual possession, it is clear that a party not in possession must possess the legal title, in order to maintain the action." 7 Nebraska, 357, 376. And in Holland v. Challen, above cited, this court said, "Undoubtedly, as a foundation for the relief sought, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal title to the premises."

The necessary conclusion is, that Spitley, not having the legal title of the lots in question, cannot maintain his bill for the purpose of removing a cloud on the title; he cannot maintain it for the purpose of compelling a conveyance of the legal title, because Durant, in whom that title is vested, though named as a defendant, has not been served with process or appeared in the cause; and for like reasons Frost and wife cannot maintain their cross bill.

Decree reversed, and case remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to dismiss the appellee's bill, and the appellants' cross bill, without prejudice, the appellee to pay the costs in this court and in the Circuit Court.