Chapin v. Dougherty

Fifth Circuit

Chapin v. Dougherty

183 F. 309, 105 C.C.A. 521, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1910

DocketNo. 2,059

StatusPublished

This text of 183 F. 309 (Chapin v. Dougherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapin v. Dougherty, 183 F. 309, 105 C.C.A. 521, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Equitable jurisdiction to remove clouds from title to real estate is old and well-settled. Objection to the exercise of the same by demurrer or in the nature of pleas in abatement, such as lis pendens, adequate remedy at law, or challenging the jurisdiction as shown by the bill, should be pleaded in limine and decisions thereon provoked before taking evidence. See Equity Rule 39; 1 Daniel Chan. 555; Livingston v. Story, 11 Pet. 352, 9 L. Ed. 746; Wickliffe v. Owings, 17 How. 47, 15 L. Ed. 44; Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 578, Fed. Cas. No. 17, 952; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395, 9 Sup. Ct. 486, 32 L. Ed. 931; Perego v. Dodge, 167 U. S. 360, 164, 16 Sup. Ct. 971, 41 L. Ed. 113.

While in the answer in this case the defendants say “that the complainants have a complete and adequate remedy at law for the determination of their title,” no insistence appears to have been made thereon until final hearing. Further than this, we find that in the suits at law, wherein the defendants claim that the complainants had a complete and adequate remedy, the parties were not the same, ndr were the issues involved such as to permit full and adequate relief. In the transcript are several so-called bills of exceptions showing defendants’ objections to certain documentary and other evidence offered by the complainants, and admitted by the court. Treating these alleged bills as continuing motions to suppress evidence, we conclude that they are not well taken, and that as to the admission of said evidence the court correctly ruled.

We find the evidence in the case establishes the contentions of the complainants below, and as they are proved to have been in possession and control under title or color of title, so far as in the nature of the case such possession could he established, for over 50 [310]*310years, and have paid all taxes upon the land in question, we think that the lower court correctly decreed in their favor, confirming their title and removing clouds thereon.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Equitable jurisdiction to remove clouds from title to real estate is old and well-settled. Objection to the exercise of the same by demurrer or in the nature of pleas in abatement, such as lis pendens, adequate remedy at law, or challenging the jurisdiction as shown by the bill, should be pleaded in limine and decisions thereon provoked before taking evidence. See Equity Rule 39; 1 Daniel Chan. 555; Livingston v. Story, 11 Pet. 352, 9 L. Ed. 746; Wickliffe v. Owings, 17 How. 47, 15 L. Ed. 44; Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 578, Fed. Cas. No. 17, 952; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395, 9 Sup. Ct. 486, 32 L. Ed. 931; Perego v. Dodge, 167 U. S. 360, 164, 16 Sup. Ct. 971, 41 L. Ed. 113.

While in the answer in this case the defendants say “that the complainants have a complete and adequate remedy at law for the determination of their title,” no insistence appears to have been made thereon until final hearing. Further than this, we find that in the suits at law, wherein the defendants claim that the complainants had a complete and adequate remedy, the parties were not the same, ndr were the issues involved such as to permit full and adequate relief. In the transcript are several so-called bills of exceptions showing defendants’ objections to certain documentary and other evidence offered by the complainants, and admitted by the court. Treating these alleged bills as continuing motions to suppress evidence, we conclude that they are not well taken, and that as to the admission of said evidence the court correctly ruled.

We find the evidence in the case establishes the contentions of the complainants below, and as they are proved to have been in possession and control under title or color of title, so far as in the nature of the case such possession could he established, for over 50 [310]*310years, and have paid all taxes upon the land in question, we think that the lower court correctly decreed in their favor, confirming their title and removing clouds thereon.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F. 309, 105 C.C.A. 521, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapin-v-dougherty-ca5-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack