Grand Rapids & I.R. Co. v. Sparrow
| Decision Date | 02 October 1888 |
| Citation | 36 F. 210 |
| Parties | GRAND RAPIDS & I.R. CO. et al. v. SPARROW et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
In this case a bill in equity was filed in the proper state court to quiet the title to certain lands, and it appears upon the face of the bill of complaint that neither party is in possession of the premises in controversy. The defendants having removed the cause to the United States circuit court filed therein a general demurrer for want of equity. The Michigan statute regulating proceedings by bill in equity to quiet title, prior to 1887, was as follows:
'Any person having the actual possession and legal or equitable title to lands, may institute a suit in chancery against any other person setting up a claim thereto in opposition to the title claimed by the complainant; and, if the complainant shall establish his title to such lands, the defendant shall be decreed to release to the complainant all claim thereto and pay costs, unless the defendant shall, by his answer disclaim all title to such lands, and give a release to the complainant, in which case costs shall be awarded as the court may deem just.' 2 How.Ann.St. § 6626.
By act No. 260 of the Session Laws of 1887, the foregoing section was amended so as to read as follows:
'Any person claiming the legal or equitable title to lands, whether in possession or not, may institute a suit in chancery against any other person, not in possession, setting up a claim thereto in opposition to the title claimed by the complainant; and, if the complainant shall establish his title to such lands, the defendant shall be decreed to release to the complainant all claims thereto, and pay costs, unless the defendant shall, by his answer, disclaim all title to such lands, and give a release to the complainant, in which case costs shall be awarded as the court may deem just. ' Sess. Laws, 1887, p. 337.
T. J. O'Brien, for complainants.
Isaac Marston, for defendants.
SEVERENS J., (after stating the facts as above.)
Respecting the argument that the act of the legislature of Michigan (Laws 1887, No. 260, p. 337) extending the jurisdiction of the court of equity to quiet titles to cases where the lands are unoccupied, is unconstitutional, because it deprives the defendant of the right to trial by jury, secured by the constitution of Michigan, (article 6, Sec. 27,) I think it must be held that this constitutional provision extends only to cases where by the common law a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sun Oil Co.
...title and to remove clouds therefrom. Reynolds v. First Nat. Bank, 112 U.S. 405, 5 S.Ct. 213, 28 L.Ed. 733; Grand Rapids and I. R. Co. v. Sparrow, C.C., 36 F. 210, 1 L.R.A. 480. Annotation: 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 76. Such jurisdiction is not ousted by state legislation providing a remedy by an act......
-
Northcutt v. Eager
... ... Challen, 110 U.S. 15; Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall ... (Ore.) 402; Grand Rapids v. Sparrow, 36 F. 210 ... (Mich.) ; Chamberlain v. Marshall, 8 F ... ...
-
McLeod v. Lloyd
... ... this title." B. & C. Comp. § 390. In Grand Rapids ... and Indiana Ry. Co. v. Sparrow, 36 F. 210, 1 L.R.A. 480, ... ...
-
Bielby v. Allender
...provisions for jury trial extend only to cases where by the common law a trial by jury was customary. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Sparrow, C.C., 36 F. 210, 1 L.R.A. 480. See, also, Tabor v. Cook, 15 Mich. 322. There were no irregularities requiring that the judgment be set aside. There was ......