Ely v. New Mexico Co
| Decision Date | 28 January 1889 |
| Citation | 129 U.S. 291,32 L.Ed. 688,9 S.Ct. 293 |
| Parties | ELY v. NEW MEXICO & A. R. CO., et al. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Rochester Ford, for appellant.
Thos. Mitchell and B. H. Hereford, for appellees.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Arizona in favor of the defendants, upon their demurrer to the complaint, proceeded upon the ground that the action must be treated as a suit in equity only, and that the complaint made out no case for equitable relief, and therefore could not be maintained under the opinions of this court in Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 25, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495, and Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552, 557, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1129. See, also, More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1067 But each of those cases came from a circuit court of the United States, in which the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity is preserved. The present action, arising under territorial statutes, is governed by different considerations.
The statutes of Arizona provide that 'there shall be in this territory but one form of civil action for the enforcement or protection of private rights, and the redress or prevention of private wrongs,' to be commenced by complaint, containing 'a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language,' and 'a demand of the relief which the plaintiff claims.' Comp. Laws 1877, c. 48, §§ 1, 22, 39. Under precisely similar statutes of the territory of Montana, it has been adjudged by this court that both legal and equitable relief may be granted in the same action, and may be administered through the intervention of a jury, or by the court itself, according to the nature of the remedy sought. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648; Hershfield v. Griffith, Id. 657; Davis v. Bilsland, Id. 659; Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670. By the Compiled Laws of Arizona, (chapter 48, § 256,) 'an action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, or interest.' By the act of the territory of 1881, No. 59, that statute is amended by striking out the requirement of the plaintiff's possession, so as to read as follows: 'An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in said real property adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.'
The manifest intent of the statute, as thus amended, is, that any person owning real property, whether in possession or not, in which any other person claims an adverse title or interest, may bring an action against him to determine the adverse claim, and to quiet the plaintiff's title. It extends to cases in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tibbetts v. Olson
... ... 906, 30 A. L. R. 92; ... Wells Fargo & Co. v. State of Nevada, 248 U.S. 165, ... 39 S.Ct. 62, 63 L.Ed. 190; Campbell v. City of ... Olney, 262 U.S. 352, [91 Fla. 851] 43 S.Ct. 559, 67 ... L.Ed. 1021; Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U.S. 533, 12 S.Ct ... 720, 36 L.Ed. 532; Ely v. New Mexico & A. R. Co., ... 129 U.S. 291, 9 S.Ct. 293, 32 L.Ed. 688; Gill v ... More, 200 Ala. 511, 76 So. 453; L. R. A. 1918F, 599, ... 609, notes; Belcher v. Mhoon, 47 Miss. 613; ... Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179, text 196, 5 S.Ct ... 407, 28 L.Ed. 908; 31 C.J. 1120, 1153; 32 Cyc. 469; Terry ... ...
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp.
...court, and hence that the court erroneously failed to dismiss the case in compliance with the substance of section five, id. at 328-29, 9 S.Ct. at 293, the Court was nonetheless satisfied that the circuit court had complied with section five's procedural In the case before us the question [......
-
Pankey v. Ortiz
...is in possession, and in which, at common law, the plaintiff might have maintained ejectment." Ely v. New Mexico, etc., R. R. Co., 129 U.S. 291, 9 S.Ct. 293, 32 L.Ed. 688. In the case just quoted from the Supreme Court of the United [195 P. 913] States considered a similar statute enacted b......
-
Pankey v. Ortiz
...defendant is in possession, and in which, at common law, the plaintiff might have maintained ejectment.” Ely v. New Mexico, etc., R. R. Co., 129 U. S. 291, 9 Sup. Ct. 293, 32 L. Ed. 688. In the case just quoted from the Supreme Court of the United States considered a similar statute enacted......