TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bowdish v. Metzger

Katherine E. Bowdish v. Charles A. Metzger

Bowdish v. Metzger, 81 P. 484 (Kan. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 7, 1905
Docket
No. 14,252
Judges
Greene
Citations
81 P. 48471 Kan. 7531905 Kan. LEXIS 225
Disposition
Reversed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Title and Ownership — Suit to Quiet Title — Pleading in Equity. Equity permits a suit for discovery and relief; therefore, where the petition in a suit in equity to remove a cloud and quiet title to real estate is sufficient, except that it does not plead the title under which defendants claim, but states that the nature, character or extent of it is unknown, and prays that defendants be required to disclose such title in their answer, the petition states a good cause of action for discovery and relief.
Summary
Error from Scott district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Greene

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Greene, J.:

This is a suit in equity for discovery and relief. The court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition and, the plaintiff not wishing to amend, judgment was rendered for defendants. Plaintiff states in her petition that she is the legal and equitable owner of the land in controversy, setting out specifically her source of title. She also states that although she is the legal and equitable owner of the real estate as aforesaid the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully make some claim of title to such land adversely to her, the exact nature or character of which is unknown, but that whatever the same may be it is without foundation and casts a cloud upon her title. She asks that the defendants be required to answer and disclose the nature and character of their title or interest, that the rights of the parties be determined, and judgment rendered quieting plaintiff’s title as against the claim of defendants.

*754 In this state in a suit in equity to quiet title, or remove a cloud, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to state in her petition that she is in possession, either in person or by tenant. (Westbrook v. Schmaus, 51 Kan. 558 , 33 Pac. 306 ; Grove v. Jennings, 46 id. 366, 26 Pac. 738 .)

A suit for discovery and relief is a well-recognized equity practice. (Welles v. River Raisin & Grand River R. R. Co., 1 Walk. [Mich.] 35; Poole v. Lloyd & others, 46 Mass. 525 ; Temple v. Gove et al., 8 Iowa, 511 , 74 Am. Dec. 320 ; McClanahan v. Davis et al., 49 U. S. 170 , 12 L. Ed. 1033 ; Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355 , 25 L. Ed. 476 ; Middletown Bank v. Russ, 3 Conn. 135 , 8 Am. Dec. 164 ; Laight v. Morgan and others, 1 Johns. Cas. 429 ; Livingston v. Story, 34 U. S. 632 , 9 L. Ed. 255 ; Kimberly v. Sells, 3 Johns. Ch. 467 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 id. 294; Higinbotham v. Burnet, 5 id. 184.)

The petition in this case is very meager in its statement of facts,-but as against a demurrer we think it sufficient. Without the aid of discovery the plaintiff would be remediless. She cannot plead that which she does not know and cannot ascertain; therefore, she prays for discovery, to the end that the validity of defendant’s claim, may be determined and the contentions over the title to the land finally settled.

The judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11912: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parker v. Conrad85 P. 810 (Kan. 1906)
  2. Seaton v. Escher121 P. 907 (Kan. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Seaton v. Escher121 P. 907 (Kan. 1912)
  2. Parker v. Conrad85 P. 810 (Kan. 1906)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

DepthCaseCited by
Livingston v. Story, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 632 (1835) 43
Denver v. Roane, 99 U.S. 355 (1879) 40
Westbrook v. Schmaus, 33 P. 306 (Kan. 1893) 9
McClanahan v. Davis, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 170 (1850) 5
President of the Middletown Bank v. Russ, 3 Conn. 135 (1819) 22
Laight v. Morgan, 1 Johns. Cas. 429 (1798) 7
Kimberly v. Sells, 3 Johns. Ch. 467 (1818) 5
Temple v. Gove, 8 Iowa 511 (1859) 2
Pool v. Lloyd, 46 Mass. 525 (1843) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list