Lessee of Parrish v. Ferris, Et Als

• Decision Date: 01 December 1862
• Parties: LESSEE OF PARRISH v. FERRIS, ET ALS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

67 U.S. 606

2 Black 606

17 L.Ed. 317

LESSEE OF PARRISH v. FERRIS, ET ALS.

December Term, 1862

Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

Mr. Pugh and Mr. Worthington, of Ohio, for Plaintiff in Error.

Mr. Taft and Mr. James, of Ohio, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

The action was ejectment to recover possession of certain parcels of land situate in the county of Hamilton.

On the trial the lessor of the plaintiff claimed title to the premises under the will of ndrew Ferris and Elizabeth A. Parrish, his wife, who was a daughter and only child of Andrew Ferris.

The defendants by way of defence, claimed title also under the same will; and in addition, set up in bar of a recovery a previous suit between the same parties in the Courts of the State of Ohio, involving the same title, and in which a judgment or decree was rendered in their favor.

By a Statute of Ohio, it is provided that 'an action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse estate or interest.'

In 1853, Francis A. Parrish, under whom the present lessor claims title, being in possession of the premises, instituted proceedings under this statute against the present defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Hamilton; and in his bill or complaint set forth that he was in possession, holding the same as absolute owner in fee simple, and with the legal title thereto of the premises in question, describing them, and charging that the defendants claimed to have some estate or interest in the same and prayed that the defendants might be compelled to show what estate or interest in the lands they or any of them might have; that the Court might determine and declare that the defendants, nor any of them, had any valid interest or estate therein; and would order that the title of the plaintiff and his possession be established and quieted.

To this bill of complaint the defendants answered, and admit the possession of the plaintiff, but deny that he hold the same as absolute owner in fee simple, and with the legal title thereto; and then set up title in themselves under the will of Andrew Ferris.

This is the substance of the issue made between the parties. It is very much amplified by the form of the pleadings adopted, which set out the evidence of the facts, instead of the facts themselves. The Court, however, look to the substance of the issue, and by that it appears that each party claimed title derived from the will of Andrew Ferris—the plaintiff claiming by devise through his wife, the only child of the testator; the defendants as his brothers and sisters, or their heirs. The title, whether in the one or the other, turned upon a construction of the will of Andrew Ferris, the common source of title.

The Court, after consideration, held that the plaintiff took the legal title in the premises, and that the defendants had no title or interest in the same, and gave judgment accordingly; whereupon the defendants appealed to the District Court, which, on account of the case involving difficult and important questions of law, sent it to the Supreme Court for determination.

That Court, after holding that no estate passed to the plaintiff under the will of Andrew Ferris and the devise of his wife, and that it passed to the defendants, the brothers and sisters, reversed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas and decreed a dismissal of the bill or complaint and remanded the cause to the District Court to have this decree carried into effect.

It will be seen from the above...