Case ID: wis_49/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LyoN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willis and wife vs. Sweet.
    
      May 12
    
    
      May 27, 1880.
    
    
      Equity: Cloud upon title.
    
    A complaint which shows that a deed of land deposited in escrow was procured to be recorded through the false representations of the person • therein named as grantee, without performance of the conditions upon which it was to be delivered to him, held to state a good cause of action in equity, for a removal of the cloud, both under sec. 8186, R. S., and independently of the statute.
    APPEAL from the County Court of Fond du Lae County.
    Action to remove a cloud from the title of the plaintiffs to certain land described in the complaint.
    The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are the owners and in tbe actual possession of tbe land; tbat they agreed with tbe defendant to sell tbe same to bim for $55, five dollars of which tbe defendant then paid to them, and to execute and place in tbe bands of J. W. Bass, Esq., in escrow, a conveyance of tbe. land to tbe defendant, to be delivered to bim when he should pay Mr. Bass for tbe plaintiffs the balance of the purchase money; that they executed and deposited the conveyance as agreed; and that, instigated thereto by tbe false representations of tbe defendant, Mr. Bass bad the deed recorded in the office of tbe register of deeds. This record is the cloud complained of. Tbe nonpayment of the balance of the purchase money by tbe defendant, and bis refusal to pay the same, are also alleged.
    The answer is, substantially, tbat the agreed price of the land was tbe surrender of a mortgage thereon held by the defendant, on which was due nearly $800, and of the note of the plaintiff husband, which such mortgage was given to secure; that said note and mortgage were thereupon surrenderee! as agreed; and that the defendant has paid tbe balance of tbe purchase money, to wit, $55.
    On tbe trial, defendant objected to all evidence, on tbe ground tbat tbe complaint fails to state a cause of action in equity, and shows that tbe plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. The court sustained the objection, and rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. This appeal is by the plaintiffs from such judgment.
    The cause was submitted on tbe brief of James W. Bass for tbe appellants, and that of I). W. G. Priest for the respondent.
   LyoN, J.

Beyond all question the- complaint states a cause of action in equity. It states a cause of action under the statute (R. S., 822, sec. 3186); and independently of the statute it states facts constituting a cause of action quia timet/ and courts of equity have inherent jurisdiction of such actions. Pier v. Fond du Lac, 38 Wis., 470. Under the averments of the complaint, the plaintiffs have not parted with their title to the land, and the recorded conveyance is a cloud upon their title, which, without regard to any other remedy they may have, they are entitled to have removed. This a court of equity alone can do.

By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.