Keane v. Kyne
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals„ Plaintiff’s own testimony showed that he was never in possession of the land for a moment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals„ Plaintiff’s own testimony showed that he was never in possession of the land for a moment. No principle of equity is better settled than that in order to maintain a suit to remove a cloud on title, the plaintiff must not only show a legal title to the land, but must prove himself in actual possession of the land in suit; the reason of this rule being that if plaintiff is not in actual possession of the land, and defendant is, then the plaintiff’s remedy is at law, by ejectment; but if the land is in possession of a third person, it would be frivolous…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
— The plaintiff' seeks to remove what he terms a cloud upon his title to a certain lot in the city of St. Louis, caused, as he claims, by a forged deed purporting to have been executed by himself to defendant, in' 1873. The answer denied plaintiff’s ownership or possession of the lot, and the forgery of the deed, &c. The court entered a decree for the plaintiff, which was reversed at general term, and on appeal to the court of appeals, the petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals here.
1. We approve the action of the court of appeals in dismissing the petition, and for the following…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Orton v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Polk v. PendletonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sneathen v. SneathenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Rhodus v. GeatleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Hanna v. South St. Joseph Land Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. HezelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Beedle v. MeadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.