Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Miss. 239

Wofford v. Bailey

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1879

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1879-10-15

Hon. R. W. WilliamsoN, Chancellor. The only error assigned by the appellant is the action of the court below in overruling his demurrer which was to the whole of the appellees’ bill of complaint. This case involves a construction of Code 1871, § 975. That statute was not designed to draw into the Chancery Court contests as to legal titles. Carlisle v. Tindall, 49 Miss. 229. Ejectment suits are not of equitable cognizance. Huntington v. Allen, 44 Miss. 654.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“recourse must be had to a court of law to obtain possession....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 800 So. 2d 125 - White v. Usry

Relies on Ezelle v. Parker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 2001

3 state decisions

1018791880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Chalmers, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The bill alleges that the complainants are the real owners of the land in controversy, by descent from their father, and that the defendant is in possession under a title-bond from one who had no title, and also under a void tax-deed. It seeks to have the tax-deed and title-bond cancelled as clouds upon their title, and asks for a writ of assistance to recover possession. The principal point of demurrer is to the alleged want of jurisdiction in a court of chancery, because of the existence of a complete remedy by action of ejectment at law. Under the broad provisions of § 975 of the Code of 1871, the bill is maintainable in so far as it seeks a cancellation and removal of the title-bond and tax-deed as clouds, but is not maintainable in so far as it seeks possession of the land. The Chancery Court has no jurisdiction to award possession in this class of cases. The jurisdiction under the statute is exhausted when the particular muniments of title specified in the bill have been cancelled. Recourse must be had to a court of law to obtain possession; and in the action at law the defendant may set up any title he may have to the land other than that adjudged void in the chancery proceedings. Ezelle v. Parker, 41 Miss. 520.

¶3Decree affirmed.

/57/miss/239 · .json · Public domain