Suttle v. R. F. & P. R. R.

Citations

• 76 Va. 284
• 1882 Va. LEXIS 31

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment—Legal title.—The doctrine generally understood in Virginia is, that in ejectment the plaintiff must show a legal title in himself, and a present right of possession under it at the time of the commencement of the action.</p> <p>2. Idem—Exceptions.—To this doctrine some exceptions exist—e. g., one in peaceable possession, and ousted by a stranger without title, may recover in ejectment on the strength of his mere previous possession ; a tenant is estopped to deny the title of his landlord, etc.</p> <p>3. Law and Equity Courts.—In no State is the distinction between these courts and the principles governing them more rigidly adhered to than in this.</p> <p>4. Ejectment—Equitable defences.—The doctrine that in ejectment the title in fee must prevail over a mere equitable interest, led to the statutes (Code of 1873, ch. 131, §§ 20, 21) allowing equitable defences against a naked legal title, where there is written evidence of the contract, and vendee has fully complied with all the terms, so as to entitle him in equity to a conveyance, without condition.</p> <p>5. Idem—Equitable estoppel—Parol disclaimer.—here legal title is vested in one, no mere parol disclaimer can divest that title. It has been'long settled here that disclaimer of a freehold can only be by deed or in a court of record. Case of Bryan v. Hyre, 1 Rob. Rep. 101, approved.</p> <p>6. Idem—Survey.—A survey excfEfding the land in litigation from the grantee’s purchase is ineffectual to divest the freehold, which must remain in him until the execution of some instrument, or the occurrence of some act which ean pass the freehold.</p> <p>7. Idem—Parol evidence to establish a case of equitable estoppel, and upon that to recover in ejectment, is inadmissible. The remedy, if any, is in equity.</p>