Ladner v. Ladner

2 Miss. Dec. 607
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided February 27, 1881·Published

Opinion

Opinion.

Per curiam:

The decree is too broad in that it cancels the patent issued to the appellant, whereas the appellee has no valid claim to more than an undivided two-thirds interest in the land. In order to correct this error and limit the decree to the right of the complainant in the bill, the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded for a decree below in accordance with this view.

The patent should be ordered to be cancelled and the appellant be enjoined from using or attempting to use it as to an undivided two-thirds interest in the land described.

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

A conveyance by one tenant in common purporting to convey the whole estate, passes only his interest. (Code 1857, art. 7, p. 307.) His co-tenants may maintain a bill to cancel the conveyance as a cloud upon their interests. Williams v. Tucker, 47 Miss. 678.

Complainant is required to show that he is the legal or equitable owner of the land. If he does not do this, and his title is denied, he will fail, regardless of the defendant’s title. Walton v. Tusten, 49 Miss. 569; Handy v. Noonan, 51 Miss. 412; Griffin v. Harrison, 52 Miss. 824; Hart v. Bloomfield, 66 Miss. 100, 5 So. 620; Chiles v. Gallagher, 67 Miss. 413, 7 So. 208; Soria v. Stowe, 66 Miss. 615, 6 So. 317; Bank v. West, 67 Miss. 729, 7 So. 513; Ricks v. Baskett, 68 Miss. 250, 8 So. 514; Wilkerson v. Hiller, 71 Miss. 678, 14 So. 442; Pierce v. Hunter, 73 Miss. 754, 19 So. 660.

In an action to quiet title, where complainant’s title is put in issue, she must aver and prove that she is the owner of the property, either by a good legal or equitable title. Chiles v. Champenois, 69 Miss. 603, 13 So. 840.

In a suit to remove a cloud on title, the burden is on plaintiff to establish that he.himself has a perfect legal or equitable title. Stevens Lumber Co. v. Hughes, 38 So. 769.

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

Ladner v. Ladner, 2 Miss. Dec. 607 (Mich. 1881).

2 Miss. Dec. 607 (Ladner v. Ladner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phœnix Fire Insurance v. Hoffheimer, Bros. & Co.
46 Miss. 645 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1872)
Williams ex rel. Tucker v. Tucker
47 Miss. 678 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1873)
Walton v. Tusten
49 Miss. 569 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1873)
Irwin v. Lewis
50 Miss. 363 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1874)
Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. Neighbors
51 Miss. 412 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1875)
Griffin v. Harrison
52 Miss. 824 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1876)
Hart v. Bloomfield
66 Miss. 100 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1888)
Soria v. Stowe
66 Miss. 615 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1889)
Chiles v. Gallagher
67 Miss. 413 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1889)
Peoples Bank v. West
67 Miss. 729 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1890)
Ricks v. Baskett
68 Miss. 250 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1890)
Chiles v. Champenois
69 Miss. 603 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1891)
Wilkinson v. H. Hiller & Co.
71 Miss. 678 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1893)
Pierce v. Hunter
73 Miss. 754 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1896)