Case Name: Eagle v. Franklin
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1903-07-15
Citations: 71 Ark. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eagle v. Franklin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 544–549

Head Matter:
Eagle v. Franklin.
Opinion delivered July 15, 1903.
1. Partition — Adverse Possession. — An answer to a bill for partition wiiicb. alleges that defendant is in adverse possession of the land states a good defense. (Page 545.)
2. Same — Practice.-—Where the defense of adverse possession is set up in a suit for partition, the court may, in its discretion, retain the cause on its docket and allow plaintiff time in which to establish title in an action of ejectment. (Page 545.)
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court in Chancery.
Joel D. Conway, Judge.
Beversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Barbara Franklin brought this action in the circuit court to obtain a decree for partition of certain lands described in the complaint, and which the complaint alleged were owned by the plaintiff and defendant as tenants in common.
The answer of the defendant set up that he was in the actual possession of the land under claim of title to the whole tract. From the facts stated in the pleadings in the complaint, it appears that the land in question was purchased from the state by Julius Eagle’s brother of the plaintiff and defendant. This brother afterwards died, leaving surviving him.a mother and the parties to this suit as his heirs at law. The mother took possession of the land, and afterwards sold and conveyed it by warranty deed for valuable consideration to the defendant in this action. The defendant in his answer alleges that he is in actual possession of the land holding it adversely under the deed from his mother, and that he is the sole owner of the land. The court sustained a demurrer-to this answer, gave judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
G. C. Hamby, for appellant.
The answer of defendant was good, and the issues raised should be tried by a jury in an action of ejectment. 40 Ark. 155; 56 Ark. 391. '
G. B. Haynie, for appellee.
The demurrer was properly sustained. 30 Ark. 362; 31 Ark. 345; 41 Ark. 17; Sand & H. Dig., § 2479; 52 Ark. 55. A superior title should have been shown by appellant. 52 Ark. 290; 53 Ark. 449; 50 Ark. 562. Defendant should have filed exhibits of his title. Sand. & H. Dig., § 2578; 43 Ark. 296. The allegation of adverse possession, without facts showing an ouster, is not sufficient. 31 Ark. 345; 40 Ark. 155;'61 Ark. 527. A defendant in equity must answer fully and fairly. 15 Ark. 192; 24 Ark. 410; 33 Ark. 222; 7 Ark. 282.

Opinion:
Biddick, J.,
(after stating the facts). To entitle one to have partition of lands, he must not only have title, but must have possession, either actual or constructive, of the lands which'he asks to have partitioned. If there be no dispute about the title, the possession of one tenant in common will be deemed for the benefit of all his co-tenants; but, if the allegations of the answer in this case are true, the defendant is in the exclusive possession of the premises which plaintiff seeks to have partitioned, holding them adversely under color of title.
The answer, therefore, if we follow our former decisions, sets up a good defense to the action of partition, and we are of the opinion that the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to it. Ashley v. Little Rock, 56 Ark., 391; Criscoe v. Hambrick, 47 Ib., 235; Moore v. Gordon, 44 Ib., 334; London v. Overby, 40 Ib., 155.
The adverse possession of the defendant, if proved, will defeat the action for partition, but the court may, if it sees proper to do so, retain the cause on its docket, and allow plaintiff time in which to establish her title by an action at.law. London v. Overby, 40 Ark. 155.
Beversed and remanded, with an order to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings.