Whitehead v. Shattuck

Citations

• 138 U.S. 146
• 11 S. Ct. 276
• 34 L. Ed. 873
• 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2073

Syllabus

<p>The bill alleged that the plaintiff was the owner in fee of the premises, but held the title as trustee; that notwithstanding his ownership of the property and his right to its immediate possession and enjoyment, the defendants claimed title to it and were in its possession, holding the same openly and adversely to him; that their claim of title was without foundation in law or equity; and that it was made in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff. To this bill the defendants demurred, on the ground, among others, that it appeared from it that the plaintiff had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, by ejectment, to recover the real property described, and that it showed no ground for equitable relief. The demurrer was sustained. Held, that the ruling of the court below was right.</p> <p>When the right set up by the plaintiff is a title to real estate, and the remedy sought is its possession and enjoyment, that remedy should be sought at law, where both parties have a constitutional right to call for a jury.</p> <p>The provision in the Code of Iowa 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,” although construed by the courts of that State as authorizing a suit in equity to recover possession of real estate from the occupant in possession of it, does not enlarge the equity jurisdiction of federal courts in that State, so as to give them jurisdiction over a suit in equity in a case where a plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.</p> <p>Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, explained and distinguished from this case.</p>