¶1This is a proceeding in equity to remove a cloud on plaintiffs’ title to certain land in the petition described, and to recover possession of the same. On the trial, judgment was rendered for defendants, from which plaintiffs have appealed. It appears from the averments in the petition that the legal title to the land in question was in plaintiffs, and that at the time the bill was filed they were out of possession, and that defendants were in possession. The judgment must be affirmed on the ground that a party claiming the legal title and being out of possession cannot invoke equitable jurisdiction to remove a cloud on such title. Keane v. Kyne, 66 Mo. 216; Clark v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 272; Maguire v. Tyler, 47 Mo. 115; Janney v. Spedden, 38 Mo. 395.
95 Mo. 552
Davis v. Sloan
Decided April 15, 1888
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1888-04-15
— IIon. John L. Thomas, Judge. The general statement that one not in possession cannot bring a bill in equity to remove a cloud from his title is too broad. This is doubtless the rule in cases when the complainant has the legal title, but when he has only an equitable title, and the legal title is in the defendant, the rule does not apply. In that case the complainant cannot sue at law because he has no legal title, and hence can only assert his right in a court of equity.
Relies on Janney v. Spedden · Clark v. Covenant Mutual Life Insurance · Keane v. Kyne
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1888-04-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1904
4 state decisions
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 →