Otis v. Gregory

• Decision Date: 20 September 1887
• Docket Number: 12,723
• Parties: Otis v. Gregory
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

13 N.E. 39

111 Ind. 504

Otis v. Gregory

No. 12,723

Supreme Court of Indiana

September 20, 1887

From the LaPorte Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

D. J Wile, F. E. Osborn and J. B. Langworthy, for appellant.

M. Nye for appellee.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

This was an action by Mary E. Gregory against Amos Otis to quiet title to real estate. The plaintiff alleged that she was the owner, in fee-simple, of a certain particularly described tract of land in LaPorte county, and that the defendant had or claimed to have, some interest in or claim to the same, or some part thereof, of the nature of which she averred she was not advised. She alleged that the defendant was giving out to the public that he had some claim to the real estate described, by reason of which she was damaged, in that it prevented her from making sale of her land. Prayer that the plaintiff's title might be quieted, and for all other proper relief.

The foregoing summary of the complaint discloses, that neither directly nor by necessary inference does it appear that the defendant was asserting any hostile or adverse title to the real estate in question, nor does it appear that the claim which the defendant was setting up was unfounded and cast a cloud upon the plaintiff's title. Admitting every averment in the complaint to be true, there is nothing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of equity to quiet the plaintiff's title. For all that appears, the defendant may have had a valid mortgage on the land, and this may have presented the only obstacle to the sale of the real estate.

It has often been held, and the rule is uniform, that, although the plaintiff in an action to quiet title need not state in his complaint with much particularity the nature of the title or interest claimed by the defendant in or to the real estate in controversy, the complaint must show, either by direct averment or by the statement of facts from which the inference necessarily arises, that the defendant's claim is adverse to, or is unfounded and a cloud upon, the plaintiff's title. Second Nat'l Bank v. Corey, 94 Ind. 457; Conger v. Miller, 104 Ind. 592, 4 N.E. 300; Rausch v. Trustees, etc., 107 Ind. 1, 8 N.E. 25.

The complaint in the case before us can not be distinguished from that in Second Nat'l Bank v. Corey, supra. The conclusion follows that the assignment of error, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is well made.

As it may serve to bring the controversy between the parties to a conclusion, we will consider the questions made upon the answer to which the court sustained a demurrer. Without having made any question upon the complaint, the defendant answered, in substance, that in the year 1873 the plaintiff was a married woman, residing in the State of Michigan, and the owner in her own right of certain real property in that State. That by the statute of the State of Michigan (which is set out in the answer), married women are empowered to contract with reference to, and to convey and mortgage, their separate real estate in all respects as if they were unmarried. It is averred that on the 15th day of October, 1873, the plaintiff and her husband became indebted to the defendant in the sum of four hundred and sixty dollars. This indebtedness was secured by a mortgage executed by the plaintiff on her separate property in Michigan. Afterward, in June, 1874, the plaintiff sold her Michigan property and purchased that in question in LaPorte county. To enable her to make the purchase, it became necessary that she should be able to use the entire purchase-money arising from the sale of the Michigan property, including the amount due the defendant on his mortgage debt. The defendant agreed that he would release his mortgage on the property in Michigan, and permit the plaintiff to use the amount due him in paying the purchase-money of the LaPorte county property, she agreeing to give him a mortgage on the latter when the transaction should be completed. The defendant released his mortgage accordingly, and took a mortgage, executed by the plaintiff, without the joinder therein of her husband, upon the property described in the complaint. Mrs. Gregory paid for the property purchased with the proceeds of that sold. This last mortgage, it is averred, was executed in the State of Michigan, both parties believing in good faith at the time, that the law of Indiana, as in Michigan, empowered a married woman to encumber her separate real estate without the joinder of her husband. But for such belief, the defendant says he would not have released his mortgage on the Michigan property and received that on the property in Indiana.

It appears that the only interest which the defendant claims in the land in question is such as results from the foregoing facts. It further appears that the only purpose of this action is to secure a cancellation of the mortgage thus taken, and a removal of the apparent cloud or encumbrance which it casts upon the plaintiff's title.

The appellant claims that the circumstances are such as that it would be inequitable to cancel his mortgage, without first requiring payment of the debt which it was intended to secure, or otherwise placing him in as favorable a position as he would have occupied in case he had received a valid mortgage. In other words, his position is, since Mrs. Gregory has come into a court of equity, asking its aid to cancel an alleged invalid mortgage, which was made and received in good faith, she must accept the aid of the court in subordination to the maxim, "He who seeks equity must do equity." That this maxim, in its true spirit and purpose, expresses the principle which lies at the foundation of all equity proceedings, guiding and governing courts of equity at every stage in the administration of justice, is one of the distinguishing excellencies underlying all chancery jurisdiction. Pom. Eq. Jur., sections 120, 363.

In a court of equity the principle thus expressed is as authoritative as though it were enacted into positive law. In its proper sense it is a universal rule, binding upon parties and courts in all controversies in which complete justice can only be accomplished by its application, within reasonable and recognized rules.

Plowden, speaking of the quality of maxims, in Colthirst v. Bejushin, 1 Plow. 21, 27, says: "Further, there are two principal things from whence arguments may be drawn, that is to say, our maxims, and reason, which is the mother of all laws. But maxims are the foundations of the law, and the conclusions of reason, and therefore they ought not to be impugned, but always to be admitted; yet these maxims may by the help of reason, be compared together, and set one against another (although they do not vary), where it may be distinguished by reason that a thing is nearer to one maxim than to another, or placed between two maxims; nevertheless they ought never to be impeached or impugned, but always be observed and held as firm principles and authorities of themselves."

Accepting the maxim above referred to as in the highest degree authoritative, it becomes proper to inquire concerning the manner of its application in the practical adjustment of controversies between parties.

What is the "equity" which a party appealing to a court of chancery must do before he is entitled to relief? Can a party who becomes plaintiff in a court of equity be compelled, as the price of the relief demanded, to surrender to the defendant something which the latter could not have compelled by some proceeding, either at law or in equity, in case the former had not appealed to the court? If he can, then the rule that he who would have equity must do equity depends for its application in each case upon the arbitrary notions of the chancellor concerning the equities between the parties. The effect of such an application of the rule would inevitably, in many cases, be to refuse aid to which a plaintiff would be entitled, except upon condition that the latter should concede to the defendant some supposed equitable right which was not enforceable at law or cognizable in a court of equity, and, hence, not within any description of a legal or equitable right.

So far as any general rule on the subject can be laid down, it may with assurance, be stated, that a plaintiff, who shows himself otherwise entitled to the aid of a court of equity, will not be denied relief, unless the defendant brings forward some corresponding equity, growing out of the subject-matter then in suit, which would at some time subsequent to the transaction, in some form of proceeding, entitle him to a remedy against the other party in respect to the subject-matter involved. It can not be maintained in reason that a defendant, to whom the plaintiff is under some imperfect obligation of a merely moral character, which never had ripened, and never could ripen into an enforceable legal or equitable right, may nevertheless, for some merely sinister purpose, defeat an equity to which a plaintiff is entitled. If the defendant, at no time subsequent to the transaction which formed the subject-matter of the plaintiff's bill, had, and could not thereafter acquire, in respect to that transaction, any right to relief, cognizable in a court of equity or otherwise, no reason is perceived why the plaintiff should be denied an equitable remedy to which he would otherwise be entitled. As was said by the learned vice-chancellor, in Hanson v. Keating, 4 Hare, 1: "The court can never lawfully impose merely arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff, only because he stands in that position upon the record, but can only require him to give the defendant that which by the law of the court, independently of the mere position of...