From the chancery court of dackson county.

Hon. Tiiaddeus A. Wood, Chancellor.

Zeigler, appellee, was complainant in the court below, and •Catchot, appellant, was defendant there. From a decree overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complainant’s bill the defendant appealed to the supreme court'

The complainant’s bill alleged that he was the owner of certain land, three hundred feet in width, fronting on the Bay of Biloxi, and that by reason of such ownership he was legally vested with the exclusive right of planting and taking oysters in the waters of the bay for a distance of five hundred yards from the shore outward in front of his land; that the defendant, Catchot, had for many years, under some undisclosed claim, exercised the right of planting and taking oysters from the waters in front of complainant’s property and within the five-hundred yards’ limit mentioned. The bill prayed that the defendant be required to make discovery of his claim and that the same be cancelled as a cloud upon the complainant’s title.

The defendant contended that the bill failed to show any title-in complainant to the premises in dispute.

Code 1906, § 550, referred to in the briefs of counsel and the opinion of the court, is as follows:

Removing clouds upon titles. — -When a person, not the rightful owner of any real estate, shall have any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or shall assert any claim, or pretend to have any right or title thereto, which may cast doubt or suspicion on the title of the real owner, such real owner may file a bill in the chancery court to have such conveyance or other evidence or claim of title canceled, and such cloud, doubt or suspicion removed from said title, whether such real owner be in-possession or not, or be threatened to be disturbed in his possession or not, and whether the defendant be a resident of this state or not; and any person having the' equitable title to land may,, in like eases, file a bill to divest the legal title out of the person in whom the same may be vested, and to vest the same in the equitable owner.”

The appellee’s bill of complaint fails to show a fee simple-title to any land in dispute. A bill to remove a cloud from title-to realty cannot be predicated of a mere privilege or right to a certain use of property. A mere license to use realty of another, — in this case the property of the state of Mississippi,— does not constitute ownership of -real estate as contemplated by either the statute or the common law.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress