McGuire v. Pensacola City Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1901
• Docket Number: 957.
• Citation: 105 F. 677
• Parties: McGUIRE v. PENSACOLA CITY CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

105 F. 677

McGUIRE v. PENSACOLA CITY CO. et al.

No. 957.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 8, 1901

This is a suit in equity involving the right, title, and possession of a one-fourth undivided interest in 262 1/2 acres of land in the city of Pensacola, Escambia county, Fla. The bill is filed by Florida McGuire against the Pensacola City Company and 47 other defendants. Two of the defendants--the Pensacola City Company and the Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad Company-- are corporations chartered under the laws of Florida. The other defendants are all citizens of Florida, with the exception of Charles H. Edgar and Henry Knowles, who are citizens of the state of New York, and Clarence Knowles, who is a citizen of Georgia. It is alleged in the bill that the land in question was granted by the Spanish crown, in 1806 to Gabriel Rivas, who died intestate in 1822. The averments then show that the complainant is a descendant of Gabriel Rivas, and an heir at law of a one-fourth undivided interest in the lands. The lands remained in the constructive possession of the heirs of Gabriel Rivas until the year 1869 when Albert V. Caro, one of his heirs, in behalf of himself and the other heirs, took actual possession of the land; and it is alleged that he still lives on a portion of the tract. He is not made a party to the suit. The land has on it a number of houses and other improvements, with orchards and gardens, and its value exceeds $50,000. It is alleged that the Pensacola Company, acting through one William C. Cooke in company with about 50 men, forcibly entered on the lands and proceeded to cut down the trees, open and lay out streets, and then left the lands; that said Cooke, with about 50 men, in July, 1870, again took possession of the land, and undertook to construct a fence thereon; and that Albert V. Caro broke down the fence, and regained possession of the land. It is alleged that by judicial proceedings in the state courts of Florida the defendants obtained possession of the lands; that the judgments rendered by said state courts are void by reason of the fact that the judge rendering the judgment was connected with the corporation which was plaintiff, and was connected by affinity with some of the parties to the suit. It is not alleged that Florida McGuire, the complainant, was a party to these suits. Fraudulent combinations and conspiracies between the defendants are alleged. It is not alleged that the complainant is in possession of the land. It is alleged that a receiver appointed by the state court has taken possession of the land, or a part of it, and has compelled tenants thereon to attorn to him, and has forcibly and fraudulently driven off other tenants from the property, and converted it to his own use for the benefit of the Pensacola City Company and the other defendants, who are named, are 'among the present possessors of said tract, or a portion thereof, all claiming under the Pensacola City Company. ' In the thirtieth paragraph of the bill it is alleged that while the complainant, through her agents, was in possession of the land and its improvements, the defendants 'illegally wrested possession of the lands from the said heirs,' excepting that portion of the land which is in possession of Albert V. Caro. The prayer is for an injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of or interfering with the lands, or from cutting any streets or trees on the lands, or committing any trespass thereon; that a receiver may be appointed to take possession of the land and collect the rents; that an account may be taken as to rents and profits; that the title to said property may be quieted, and that it be decreed what interest and title the complainant has in the lands; and that the said tract be ascertained to belong to the complainant, and be decreed to her, together with the rents and profits. The defendants demurred to the bill because the complainant has not made such a case as entitles her in a court of equity to any discovery or relief from or against these defendants touching the matters contained in the bill, or any of such matters. The court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed to this court, and assigns the decree as error.

Louis P. Paquet, Simeon Belden, and Wolfe & Reese, for appellant.

Wm. A. Blount and A. C. Blount, Jr., for appellees.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

SHELBY Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion or the court.

Suits in equity cannot be sustained in either of the courts of the United States where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law. Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 723. This section of the judiciary act of 1789 was merely declaratory of existing law. The averments of the bill show that the complainant has the legal title to the land claimed, and that defendants have obtained possession by force, and are not in possession. This makes a plain case for an action of ejectment. If these averments are true,-- and on demurrer they are presumed to be true,-- the appellant would be...