36 FEDERAL nnronrnn.
2.._ S.uttE——Cnoss-B1LL—R1cnrs or DEFENDANT.,
The defendant in a suit to remove a cloud from a title to property in the plain-
tiff’s possession, has a right to file across·bil1 urging a superior title in himself,
and to he fully heard; and if his title is found to be better than the plaintiffs,
he is entitled to a decree in his favor, settling the whole controversy.
3. SAME.
Where a cross-bill is nled it should contain adequate avcrments to show title
in the defendant.
4. SAME--How DEFECTB Snounn BE TAKEN Apvlmsem or.
Where the cross-bill does not contain the proper averments, the defect
should be taken advantageof by demurrer.
In Equity. Pleas and demurrer to a cross-bill?"
This is a suit to quiet the title to` certain real estate situated in the
city of St. Louis, by removing a cloud therefrom, caused, as alleged,
by the execution to the defendants grantor, of a certain tax deed.
E. Cunningham, Jr., for complainant.
E; R. Marhjfor defendants.
Tamar, J. The unquestioned rule obtains in all cases in equity to
remove a cloud upon a title that it must be clear that plaintiff has
not a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law; otherwise he will
be remitted to his common-law remedy. This, under the constitu-
tion of the United States, the acts of congress, and repeated decis-
ions of the United States supreme court, is an inflexible rule. Mere
questions as to conflicts of supposed legal titles can ordinarily be de-
cided in actions of ejectment. Q
Plaintiffs right in this case to sue in equity rests solely on the fact
that, being in possession, they cannot sue the adverse parties at law.
They set out in their bill with great fullness the pretended title of the
defendants, as well as their own derivative title. The defendants file
a cross~bill designed to be defensive in part, but to a large extent af-
firmative. The purpose of the pleader is to urge the superiority of
defend_ants’ title and to have a decree settling the whole contro· E
versy. To the cross-bill two pleas have been interposed and argued.
The first is that, inasmuch as the cross-bill does not aver posses-
sion in the defendants, their remedy as for affirmative relief is at law;
' that is, if persons are not in possession of real estate to which they
have paramount title, they should be driven to their action of eject-
ment. That plea rests upon a misapplication of the general rule
stated. The plaintiffs are in court for the sole reason that they are
in possession, and therefore have brought in the defendants, who are
out of possession, to answer to the demand made. The defendants.
*For opinion on demurrer to original bill see 10 FED. REP. 800.