Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 Ark. 436

Mathews v. Marks

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1884-11-15

Hon. J. M. Bradley, Circuit Judge. The demurrer admits that appellant is the owner of the land, and that the sheriff’s deed is a cloud upon his title, and that said deed was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. This makes a case for a court of chancery. It is the only forum to afford the relief prayed. 2If. Ark., lf.31; 29 lb., 612; see also 19 Ark., 139, which we think is conclusive.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1971

7 state decisions

401884189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.

¶1This was a bill to remove a cloud from the title to lands. The plaintiff alleges that he is the legal owner in fee of the lands, and the cloud he complains of is cast by a sheriff’s deed based upon a judgment and execution against him. He avers the nullity of said judgment on account of the non-service of process in the action, whereby he had no day in court. It is not disclosed who is in possession of the lands, or whether they are occupied at all.

¶2The bill was dismissed upon demurrer, the plaintiff having declined to amend.

¶3A party who sues in equity to remove a cloud upon his title must be in possession, unless his title be merely an equitable one. Eor where the title is a purely legal one and the defendant 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 case the adverse party has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Bryan v. Winburn, 43 Ark., 28; Lawrence v. Zimpleman, 37 Ark., 643, and cases cited; Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall., 466; Hipp v. Babin, 19 Howard, 271; 3 Pomeroy Eq. Jr., sec. 1399.

¶4tltle-

¶5The decree is affirmed without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to bring ejectment if he is out of possession, or to file another bill if he is in possession or the lands are wild and unoccupied. But no costs are allowed him for this modification.

/44/ark/436 · .json · Public domain