LAMB v. FABRELL. 7
Ark. 612; Terry v. Rosell; 32 ‘Ark..478,i490;.Hare v. Oarnall, .39
Ark. 196, 202; Lawrencefv. Zlrnpleman, 37 Ark. 643. Expressions
may be found in some of these cases which, taken alone, might indi-
cate the jurisdiction was not quite so extended. But the utterances
of every court must be read in the light of the facts of the case which
it is deciding. — 1 · .
Inulpperson v. Ford, supra, a single judge expressed the opinion
"that the jurisdiction is exercised to strengthen and protect the title
that is connected with actual possession, " but a majority of the court
did not concur in this view; and in the later case of Branch v. Mit-
chell', supra, the court, upon full consideration of the question, held
that "where one holding the equitable title only to lands, or a ju-
nior legal title with prior or superior equities, comes into a court of
equity to impeach and cancel, or compel a conveyance, of the senior
or better. legal title, the jurisdiction of the court in nowise depends on
the question of possession.", The reasoning of the court in support
of this proposition would- seem to be unanswerable: "Whether one
holding ia junior or inferior legal title withprior or superior equities
be in or out of possession, it is difficult to conceive on whatgrounds
his right to the aid of a court of equity can be denied;. If in posses-
sion, he may be ousted by an ejectment; if out, he cannotobtain
possessionwhen confronted bythe only or the older and better legal
title. If in possession, he cannot bring ejectment; out, he cannot
maintain it." A ~
Notwithstanding the language of the learned judge who delivered
the opinion of the court in A pperson v. Ford, that this jurisdiction is
exercised "to protect the titleethat is connected with actual posses-
sion," it is obvious he did not mean to assert that possession was
essential to the jurisdiction in every case, because later on in the
opinion he concedes the jurisdiction where neither party is in posses-
sion. He says, (p. 762:) · _
" Taking neither party in Mitchell v. Elter to havebeen in possession, then
Mitchell and wife were without remedy at law, and without any means to
test the opposing title of the defendants, but by complaining of it in chan-
cery, as a cloud upon their title, and that fact alone would give jurisdiction.
Mattingly'.? Heirs v. Oorblt, 7 B. Mon. 376. "
And this doctrine has been uniformly maintained by the court.
In Shell v. Martin, 19 Ark. 139, a bill was sustained by the holder
of the legal title out of possession against a defendant in possession A
claiming under an alleged legal title. On these facts, it is obvious
the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law; and, upon that ground,
Shell v. Martin has been overruled by the later cases. - ·
The state, as well as the owners, has an interest that the title to
lands within her borders should be quieted. Doubtful or clouded ti-
tles prevent the sale, lessen the value, and retard the occupation
and improvement of lands; and the additional public revenue which ,
· would be derived from their improvement and enhanced value is lost.