Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/421

CHAMBERIjAIN V. MARSHALL. 407 �interest." In cpmmaenting on and construing that enaotment, Mr. Justice Field said : / . �"This statute cohfers a iurisdietion beyond that ordinarily exercised by courts ot equity, to aflord relief in the quieting of title and possession Cft real property. By the ordinary jurisdiction of those courts a suit would not lie for that purpose unless the possession of the plaintiff had been previously disturbed by legal prbeeedings on the part of the defendant, and the right of the plaintiff had b&en sustained by successive judgments in his f avor. Sh^- ley V. Rangely, tixviea, 242; Droonshe v. Newenham, 2 Sch. & Lef. 208; Cwrife V. Swtte', 15 Cal. 257. * * * By the statute in question it is un- necessary, in order t<i' obtain this interposition of equity, for the party in possession to delay his suit until his possession has been disturbed biy legal proceedings, and judgment in these proceedings has passed in his favor. It is sufflcient that a party ont of possession claims an estate or interest in the prbperty adverse to him. ' He Can theh at once comiience his suit and require the nature and dharaeter of such adverse estate or interest to be set forth and subjected to judicial investigation and determination, and that the right of possession, as between him and the elaimant, shall be forever quieted. We do not, however, understand that the mere naked possession of the plaintifC is sufflcient to authorizehim to institute the suit, ^and require an exhibitipa of the estate of the adverse elaimant, though the language of the statute is that 'any person in possession by himself or tenant may maintain' the suit, His possession must be accompanied with a claim of right, — that'is, must be founded upon title,'legal or equitable.^^and such claim or title must be'exhib- ited by the proofs, and perhaps in the pleadings also,before the ad verse elaim- ant can be required to produce the evidence upon which he resta his claim of an adverse estate or interest." ■ �In that case the plaintiff 's title consisted of a patent purporting to have been granted by the United States,' From a consideration of the laws in force applicable to the case, the court determined that the patent was void, as having been issued without authority of law. Mr. Justice Field then prooeeds as follows : �•' His position (the plaintifE's) is, theref ore, reduced to that of a ihere pos- sessor without title. Such possession is entirely insufflcient to justify the interposition of equity for the determination of the defendant's title, even under the very liberal act of Oregon. The plaintiff must first show in himself some right, logal or equitable, in the premises before he can call in question the validity of the title of the defendant." �The complainant in this case, we, have already seen, is in a similar category. His deniai of the validity of the defendant's claim of title takes from himself all title which otherwise he might claim, except that based upon mare naked possession. �,, The remedy given by the section of the Revised Statutes of Ohio ujider present consideration: is 'iftn action," meaning the uaivecsal ��� �