Skip to main content
· 12/10/1894

Wehrman v. Conklin

Citations

  • 155 U.S. 314
  • 15 S. Ct. 129
  • 39 L. Ed. 167
  • 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2277

Syllabus

<p>The general principles of equity jurisprudence, as administered in this country and in England, permit a bill to quiet title to be filed only by a party in possession, against a defendant who has been ineffectually seeking to establish a legal title by .repeated actions of ejectment; and as a prerequisite to such bill it was necessary that the title of the plaintiff sh,ould have been established by at least one successful trial at law.</p> <p>The statutes of Iowa, (Code, § 3273,) having enlarged the jurisdiction of the courts of equity of that State by providing that “ an action to determine and quiet title to real property may pe 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,” such enlarged jurisdiction, if sought to be enforced in a Federal court, sitting within the State, can only be exercised subject to the constitutional provision entitling parties to a trial by jury, and to the provision in Rev. Stat., § 723, prohibiting suits in equity where a plain, coihplete and adequate remedy may be had at law.</p> <p>In December, 1859, the land, the subject of controversy in this suit, was patented to A. W. In the same month it was conveyed by A. W. and his wife to F. W. In January, 1861, G. caused it to be attached as the property of A. W. in an action .founded upon a judgment obtained against him in a court in Wisconsin, which case proceeded to judgment against A. W. in September, 1861. Prior to levy of execution in that case, G., in a suit in equity against A. W. and F. W., obtained a decree declaring the deed to be void and ordering the land to be sold in satisfaction of the judgment at law. Levy was made, the land was sold, and the sheriff made a deed conveying the property to G., who entered into possession, paid taxes, and in 1881, 1882, and 1884 conveyed the lands to C., who entered into possession and made valuable improvements upon th

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”
  • “Though a good defense in equity, laches is no defense at law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.