| Ark. | Oct 31, 1921
(after stating the facts). Equity jurisdiction to quiet title, independent of statute, can only 'be invoked by a plaintiff in possession holding the legal title. The reason is where the title is a purely legal one, and some one else is in possession, the remedy at law is plain, adequate and complete, and an action of ejectment cannot be maintained under-the guise of a bill in chancery. In such a case the party in possession has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Pearman v. Pearman, 144 Ark. 528" date_filed="1920-06-21" court="Ark." case_name="Pearman v. Pearman">144 Ark. 528, and cases cited.
So, too, under our statute any person claiming to own land that is in the actual possession of himself, or those claiming under him, may have his title to such land confirmed and quieted in the manner provided by the act. Crawford & Moses’ Digest, §§ 8362 and 8383.
In the present case the plaintiff claims under a legal title, and the defendant is in possession of the land claiming to hold adversely to the plaintiff and to all other persons. The plaintiff claiming under a legal title and the defendant being in possession, the plaintiff had a full and complete remedy at law, and chancery had no jurisdiction in the premises.
It is true that the defendant filed an answer setting up title in herself by adverse possession, but she did this by way of defense to the plaintiff’s action, and did not ask affirmative relief for herself. Of course, where the defendant files a cross-bill founded on matters clearly cognizable in equity, this supplies any defect in jurisdiction and places the court in possession of the whole cause and imposes upon it the duty of granting relief to the party entitled to it. The original bill and cross-bill then became but one cause, and a court of chancery takes jurisdiction where allegation of the cross-bill supply the defects of the original bill. Pearman v. Pearman, supra, and cases cited.
It follows that, neither the original bill nor the answer having set up matters cognizable in equity, the chancery court was right in dismissing the complaint for want of equity, and the decree will be affirmed.