111 F. 575 | 4th Cir. | 1901
Tlie bill in this case was hied on the 27th day of March, 1896, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. Fred Fickey, Jr., the complainant, sold his title, claim, and interest in the land in controversy by deed of June 21, 1897; and by decree entered on the 30th December, 1899,—the said Fred Fickey, Jr., having departed this life,—the case was revived in the name of Frank Woods, who then owned such title to the lauds mentioned as Fickey had theretofore possessed. The object of the suit was to remove a cloud upon complainant’s title to a tract of 5,000 acres of laud situated in the counties of Randolph and Pocahontas, in the slate of West Virginia. It appears from the record that the state of West Virginia on the 10th day of June, 1866, granted said trad: of laud to W N. McVeigh and otheis, and that by regular mesne conveyances the said Frank Woods claimed title thereto; that the defendants below, when this suit was instituted, claimed said tract of land by virtue of two deeds made by A. H. Winchester to James .1.1. Dewing, dated February 25, t886, and August 23, 1887. 'The said Winchester claimed part of the land by virtue of certain deeds connecting him with the patent to Henry Banks for 36,000 acres, dated July 11, 1795, granted by the commonwealth of Virginia; other part by a deed made by Elihu Hutton and wife, dated August T9, T887; another portion under a tax sale in the year 1S81 by the commissioner of school lands for Pocahontas county; and another portion (the southern part thereof)
There can be no question as to the jurisdiction of equity of suits to remove clouds, upon the title to real estate, but it is just as well determined that only those who have a clear legal title, connected with the possession of land, have any right to ask the aid of a court of equity in removing a cloud on the title to the same. We are unable to find with the court below that the complainant is the owner of the legal title to the land embraced in the McVeigh survey, for it plainly appears from the record of this cause that such title to said land’is held by the state Of West Virginia, as adjudged by the decree of the circuit court of Randolph county,—a judicial
Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the supreme court of the United States in Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552, 556, 7 Sup. Ct. 1129, 1131, 30 L. Ed. 1010, 1012, sajes:
■“Under tlie 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 tlie legal title from being disturbed in his possession or harassed by suits in regal'd to that title; and tlie bill cannot ue maintained without clear proof of both possession and legal title In the plaintiff. Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch, 162, 3 L. Ed. 624; Peirsoll v. Elliott, 6 Pet. 95. 8 L. Ed. 332; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263, 15 L. Ed. 393; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352, 17 L. Ed. 91; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430, 17 L. Ed. 319. 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 pence or dissipate a cloud on the title.’ 18 How. 265, 15 L. Ed. 394. A person out of possession cannot maintain such a bill, whether his title is legal or equitable; for, if his title is legal, liis 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, 318 U. S. 86, 6 Sup. Ct. 991, 30 L. Ed. 110; Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 550, 5 Sup. Ct. 631, 28 L. Ed. 993.”
It was alleged in the bill that complainant had a fee simple title to the land in controversy, and that he was in possession of the same. The record shows that complainant did not when the bill was filed, and does not now, have the legal title to the land, and therefore it is entirely unnecessary that we consider the matter of possession. The facts disclosed by the record relating to the title of appellee are as we have stated, and, the law applicable thereto being as we have quoted,, it follows that there was error in the decree entered by the court below on June 21, 1900. As the bill must be dismissed because it appears that the complainant did not hate the legal title to the land in controversy at the time this suit was instituted, and that such title was then and is now vested in the state of West Virginia, it will not only be useless, but really improper, for us to further consider the questions of law and fact raised by the pleadings, testimony, and argument. On the bill alone the case is against the complainant below.
The decree appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded, with directions that the bill be dismissed. Reversed.