Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ark. 432

Head v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 17, 1902

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1902-05-17

Will P. Feazel, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is a suit by the appellants against the appellees for the partition of certain lands mentioned in the complaint, and which are held adversely by the appellees. The appellees claim title to said lands by virtue of a will executed by Mary Alice Head, the mother of appellants. This complaint prays for a construction of this will and partition of the land.

Relies on Moore v. Gordon · Criscoe v. Hambrick · London v. Overby

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Color Of Title”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-05-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1999

10 state decisions

401902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) It has been several times held by this court that where lands are claimed by another and held adversely, a suit in equity for partition will not lie. The remedy is in ejectment to settle the title, before a bill for partition can be maintained. The remedy by ejectment is complete and adequate. The will can be construed in a suit by ejectment, and the title settled. Moore v. Gordon, 44 Ark. 334; Criscoe v. Hambrick, 47 Ark. 235; London v. Overby, 40 Ark. 155.

¶2The will in this case bequeathed a legal title only. “So far as a will of real property bequeaths purely legal estates, and the devisees therein obtained purely legal title to the land given, the enforcement thereof belongs to the courts of law bjr means of the action of ejectment; the courts of law have Ml power to control and interpret the instrument and to determine the rights of the devisees; there is no necessity, and therefore no power, of resorting to a court of equity in order to obtain a construction of such wills.” 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 1155. “The special equitable jurisdiction to construe wills is simply an incident to the general jurisdiction over trusts. A court- of equity will never entertain a suit brought solely for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of a will without any further relief, and will never exercise a power to interpret a will which only deals with legal estates or interests, and which makes no attempt to create any trust relations with respect to the property donated. It is by reason of the jurisdiction of courts of chancery over trusts that courts having equitable powers, as an incident of that jurisdiction, take cognizance of and pass upon the interpretation of wills. They do not take jurisdiction of actions brought solely for the construction of instruments of that character, nor when only legal titles are in controversy.” 3 do. § 1156.

¶3As only a legal title was bequeathed by the will, without the creation of any trust, equity had no jurisdiction.

¶4The demurrer was properly sustained.

¶5Affirmed.

/70/ark/432 · .json · Public domain