The facts set forth in the bill of the plaintiff clearly show that be has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law for the injuries of which he complains. He alleges that he is the owner in fee, as trustee, of certain, described lands in Iowaj and his injuries consist in this: that the defendants are in the possession and enjoyment of the property, claiming title under certain documents purporting to transfer the same, which are fraudulent and void. If the owner in fee of the premises, he can establish that fact in an action at law; and if the evidences of the defendants’ asserted title are fraudulent and void, that fact he can also show. There is no occasion- for resort to a court of equity, either to establish his right to the land or to put him in possession thereof.
The sixteenth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789,1 Stat. 82, c. 20, declared !£ that suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law,” and this provision has been carried into the Revised Statutes, in section 723. The provision is merely declaratory, making no alteration whatever in the rules of equity on the subject of legal remedies, but only expressive of the law which has governed proceedings in equity ever since their adoption in the *151 courts of England. The term “speedy” as used in the demurrer is embraced by the term “complete” in the statute.
The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that “ in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” That provision would be defeated if an action at law could be tried by a court of equity, as in the latter court a jury can only be summoned at its discretion, to ascertain special facts for its enlightenment.
Lewis
v. Cocks,
It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to state any general rule which would determine, in all cases, what should be deemed a suit in equity as distinguished from an action at law, for particular elements may enter into consideration which would take the matter from one court to the other ;. but this may be said, that, where an action is simply for the recovery and-possession of specific real or personal property, or for the recovery of a money judgment, the action is one at law. An. action for the recovery of real property, including damages for withholding it, has always been of that class. The right which in this case the plaintiff wishes to assert is his title to certain real property; the remedy which he wishes to obtain is its possession and enjoyment; and in a contest over the title both parties have a constitutional right to call for a jury.
What we have thus said will be sufficient to dispose of this case; but some consideration is due to the arguments of counsel founded upon the statutes of Iowa, and the principle supposed to have been established by this court in the decision of the case of
Holland
v. Challen,
*152
The Code of Iowa enacts that “ an action to determine and quiet the title to real property may be brought by any one' having or claiming an interest therein, whether in or out of possession of the same, against any person claiming title thereto, though not in possession,” implying that the action may' be' brought against one in possession of the property. And such has been the construction of the provision by the courts of -that State.
Lewis
v.
Soule,
The State, it is true, may create new rights and prescribe the remedies for enforcing them, and, jf those remedies are. substantially consistent with the ordinary modes of proceeding in equity, there is no reason why they should not be enforced' in the courts of the United States, and such we understand to be the effect of the decision in
Clark
v.
Smith,
In
Holland
v.
Challen,
It was urged that the title of the plaintiff to the property had not been by prior proceedings judicially adjudged to be valid, and that he was not in possession of the property, the contention of ^the defendant being that, when either of these conditions existed, a court of equity would not interpose its authority to remove a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff and determine his right to the possession of the property. The court replied that “the statute of- Nebraska enlarges the class of cases in which relief was formerly afforded by a court of equity in quieting the title to real property. It authorizes the institution of legal proceedings not merely in cases where a bill of peace would lie, that is, to establish the title of the plaintiff against numerous parties insisting upon the same right, or to obtain repose against repeated litigation of an unsuccessful claim by the same party; but also to prevent future litigation respecting the property by removing existing causes of controversy as to. its title, and so embraces cases where a bill quia timet to .remove a cloud upon the title would lie.” p. 18.
The court then explained that a bill of peace would lie only where the plaintiff was in possession and his right had been successfully maintained, and that the equity of the plaintiff in such cases arose from the protracted litigation for the possession of the .property which the action of ejectment at common *154 law permitted; and that to entitle the plaintiff to relief in such cases there must be a concurrence of three particulars — the possession of the property by the plaintiff, the disturbance of his possession by repeated actions at law, and the establishment of his right by successive judgments in his favor. Upon these facts appearing, the court would interpose and grant a perpetual injunction to quiet the possession of the plaintiff against any further litigation from the same source. It was also observed, that a change in the form of the action for the recovery of real property had taken place from that which formerly existed, and that the judgment rendered in such cases, in some states became a bar to future litigation upon the subjects determined; and that in such cases there could be no necessity of repeated adjudications at law upon the right of the plaintiff, as a preliminary to his invoking the jurisdiction of a court of equity to quiet his possession against an asserted claim to the property. The court also explained when a bill quia timet would lie, and in what respect such a bill differed from a bill of peace. It was brought, it said, not so much to put an end to vexatious litigation respecting the property, as to prevent future litigation, by removing existing causes of controversy as to its title. It was designed to meet anticipated wrongs or mischiefs, the jurisdictipn of the court being invoked because the party feared future injury to his rights and interests. To maintain a suit of this character, it was said, it was also generally necessary that the plaintiff should be in possession of the property, and, except where the defendants were numerous, that his title should have been established at law, or be founded on undisputed evidence or long-continued possession.
The statute of Nebraska authorized a suit in either of these classes of cases, without any reference to any previous judicial determination of the validity of the plaintiff’s right, and without any reference to his possession; and the court pointed out the many advantages which would arise by allowing courts to determine controversies as to the title to property, even when neither party was in possession, referring particularly to what is a matter of every-day observation, that many lots of land in our cities remain unimproved because of conflicting claims to *155 them, the rightful owner hesitating to place valuable improvements upon them, and others- being unwilling to purchase them, much less to erect buildings upon them, with the certainty of litigation and possible loss of the whole; and observing that what is true of lots in cities, the ownership of which is in dispute, is equally true of large tracts of land in the country which are unoccupied and uncultivated, because of the unwillingness of persons to take possession of such land, and improve it in the face of a disputed claim to its ownership. An action for ejectment, said the court, would not lie where there is no occupant; and if no relief can be had in equity because the party claiming ownership is not in possession, the land must continue in its unimproved condition. It was, therefore, manifestly for the interest of the community that conflicting claims to property thus situated should be settled, so that it might be subjected to use and improvement. It was, said the court, to meet cases of this character, that statutes, like the one of Nebraska, had been passed by several States, and there was no good reason why the right to relief against an admitted obstruction to the cultivation, use and improvement of lands thus situated in the States should' not be enforced by the federal courts when the controversy to which it might give rise was between citizens of different States. All that was thus said was applied simply to the case presented where neither party was in possession of the property. No word was expressed, intimating that suits of the kind could be maintained in the courts of the United States where the plaintiff had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law; and such inference was specially guarded against. Said the court, “ No adequate relief to the owners of real property against the adverse claims of parties not in possession can be given by a court of law. If the holders of such claims do not seek to enforce them, the party in possession, or entitled to possession — the actual owner of the fee — is helpless in the matter, unless he can resort to a court of equity. It does not follow that by allowing, in the federal courts, a suit for relief under the statute of Nebraska, controversies properly cognizable in a court of law will be drawn into a court of equity. There can be no *156 controversy at law respecting the title to or right of possession of real property, when neither of the parties is in possession. An action at law, whether in the ancient form of ejectment, or in the form now commonly used, will lie only against a party in possession. Should suit be brought in the federal court, under the Nebraska statute, against a party in possession, there would be force in the objection that a legal controversy was withdrawn from a court of law; but that is not this case, nor is it of such cases we are speaking.” It is thus seen that the very case that is now before us is excepted from the operation of the ruling in Holland v. Challen, or at least was designedly left open for consideration whenever similar relief was sought where the defendant was in possession of the property.
Nor can the case of
Reynolds
v.
National
Bank,
Judgment affirmed.