Opinion of the Court.

parties shall require. The answer of this defendant shows the questions that will arise under this branch of the one controversy, but it does not create another controversy. The remedy which the plaintiff seeks requires the presence of all the defendants, and the settlement, not of one only, but of all the branches of the case. Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571, 588.

The present suit was a bill for partition of lands in Illinois, the principal object of which was to assign to all the tenants in common their shares in severalty. By the law of Illinois, indeed, the court might, in the suit for partition, determine all questions of conflicting or controverted titles, to the whole land or to any share thereof. But the determination of such questions of title was incidental to the main object of the suit, and in order to do complete justice between all the parties, and avoid further litigation. Illinois Rev. Stat. (ed. 1880) c. 106, S$ 1, 39; Henrichsen v. Hodgen, 67 Illinois, 179; Labadie v. Hewitt, 85 Illinois, 341; Gage v. Lightburn, 93 Illinois, 248. The object of the suit was not merely the establishment of the title of the plaintiff in an undivided share of the land; but it was the partition of the whole land, and the conversion of his undivided share into an entire estate in a proportional part, as well as the establishment of his title against all the defendants. The controversy between the plaintiff and Brown and Sorin related only to the title claimed by the plaintiff in an undivided share; Sorin's whole claim was of an equitable estate in whatever should be set off to the plaintiff ; and the other defendants denied that either the plaintiff or Brown or Sorin had any title whatever. Neither of the three, therefore, could recover judgment setting off to him any share in the land, without establishing a title, not only as between themselves, but also as against all the other defendants. The inevitable result is that the controversy of the plaintiff and Brown with Sorin was merely incidental to the main object of the suit, could not be determined as between them without the presence of the other defendants, and did not constitute such a separate controversy as would justify a removal into the Circuit Court of the United States.

Syllabus.

If the controversy between the plaintiff and Brown on the one side and Sorin on the other had been such as to justify a removal, there can be no doubt that after that controversy had been settled, as shown by the stipulation of the parties to it, the suit no longer really involved a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and should therefore have been remanded to the state court, under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137. 18 Stat. 472; Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522; Texas Transportation Co. v. Seeligson, 122 U. S. 519; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S.

571, 590.

But it is unnecessary to dwell upon that view of the case, because, for the reasons above stated, the original removal on the petition of the appellant was wrongful; and therefore the judgment must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellant, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to render a judgment against him for costs in that court, and to remand the case to the state court. Mansfield &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379; Graves v. Corbin, above cited.

Judgment reversed accordingly.

SHARON v. TUCKER.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

No. 216. Argued March 15, 16, 1892. - Decided April 11, 1892.

Adverse possession of real estate in the District of Columbia, for the period designated by the Statute of Limitations in force there, confers upon the occupant a complete title upon which he can stand as fully as if he had always held the undisputed title of record.

A possession, to be adverse, must be open, visible, continuous and exclusive, with a claim of ownership, such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises are not held in subordination to any title or claim of others, but against all titles and claimants. A person who has acquired title by adverse possession may maintain a bill

Statement of the Case.

in equity against those who, but for such acquisition, would have been the owners, for the purpose of having his title judicially ascertained and declared, and to enjoin the defendants from asserting title to the same premises from former ownership that has been lost.

Such a bill is not a bill of peace, nor is it strictly a bill quia timet. The ground of the jurisdiction is the obvious difficulty and embarrassment in asserting and protecting a title not evidenced by any record, but resting in the recollection of witnesses, and the warrant for its exercise is found in the ordinary jurisdiction of equity to perfect and complete the means by which the right, estate or interest of holders of real property, that is their title, may be proved or secured, or to remove obstacles to its enjoyment.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This was a suit in equity to establish, as matter of record, the title of the complainants to certain real property in the city of Washington, constituting à part of square number one hundred and fifty-one, and to enjoin the defendants from asserting title to the same premises as heirs of the former

owner.

The facts which gave rise to it, briefly stated, are as follows: In 1828, Thomas Tudor Tucker died seized of the premises in controversy. He had, at one time, held the office of Treasurer of the United States, and resided in Washington, but at the time of his death he was a resident of South Carolina. The property did not pass under his will but descended to his heirs at law. It does not appear that after his death any of the heirs took possession of the property or assumed to exercise any control over it. In 1837 the square was sold for delinquent taxes, assessed by the city against "the heirs of Thomas T. Tucker," and was purchased by Joseph Abbott, then a resident of the city. The taxes amounted to $38.76, and the sum bid by the purchaser was $250. In 1840 a tax deed, in conformity with the sale, was made to Abbott, purporting to convey to him a complete title to the square. It is admitted that the deed was invalid for want of some of the essential preliminaries in assessing the property and in advertising it for sale. It does not appear, however, that the purchaser had any knowledge of this invalidity. Early in the following year, 1841, he took possession of the square and

Statement of the Case.

enclosed it with a board fence and a ditch with a hedge planted on one side of it. It was a substantial enclosure, sufficient to turn stock and keep them away. He was a stablekeeper, and, in connection with this business, cultivated the ground and raised crops upon it in 1841. From the time he took possession until 1854 the square was enclosed, and each season it was cultivated. In 1854 he leased the square to one Becket for the period of ten years at a yearly rent of one hundred dollars. Becket took possession under his lease and kept the ground substantially enclosed, and he occupied and cultivated it from that time up to 1862. In the fall of that year soldiers of the United States, returning from the campaign in Virginia, were encamped upon the square, and, as it appears, they committed such depredations upon the fence, buildings and crops that the lessee was obliged to abandon its cultivation. Abbott died in April, 1861, and, by his will, devised the square to his widow. In August, 1863, she sold and conveyed it to one Perry, and he kept a man in charge of the same, who lived in a small building which Becket had built and occupied during his lease of the premises under Abbott. In 1868, Perry sold the entire square to Henry A. Willard for the consideration of seventeen thousand six hundred dollars. He divided the square into small lots for buildings for residences, and upon one side of the square, fronting on T street, erected twelve substantial dwelling-houses, which have been since occupied up to the commencement of this suit. In 1872, Willard sold and conveyed a portion of the square, the premises in controversy, to J. M. Latta, trustee, for a valuable consideration, and from him the title has passed by regular conveyances to the complainants herein. From 1840 to 1863 the square was chiefly valuable for agricultural purposes, but since then, and especially of late years, its only value has been for buildings as residences, and has been so regarded by its owners. From 1840 up to the present time the taxes upon the property have been paid by Abbott and his successors in interest. None of the heirs of Mr. Tucker, nor any one claiming under the heirs, has paid or offered to pay any taxes assessed on the property, nor, since that date,

Argument for Appellees.

up to the commencement of these suits, have any of the defendants therein or their predecessors in interest asserted any claim to the property or interest in it, or attempted in any way to interfere with its possession or control. Soon after the sale to Perry, in 1863, the tax deed was passed upon by eminent counsel in the District, the late Richard S. Coxe and James M. Carlisle, and the title by it was pronounced by them to be indisputable. It was only a short time before the institution of this suit that the invalidity of the tax deed as a source of title was ascertained. A desire to dispose of the property led the complainants to have an investigation made and an abstract of title obtained. It was then discovered that they could not obtain any abstract of title which purchasers would accept, in consequence of certain defects in the assessment of the taxes under which the sale was made and the deed to Abbott was executed. They were consequently embarrassed and defeated in their efforts to dispose of the property. To remove this embarrassment this suit was accordingly brought by the complainants to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of their title and an injunction against the defendants claiming under the previous owner.

There was no substantial disagreement between the parties as to the facts, but the defendants insisted and relied solely upon the ground that a court of equity could afford no relief to the complainants, because they were not at the commencement of the suit in actual possession of the premises.

The court below, at special term, sustained this view, and entered a decree dismissing the bill. At general term it affirmed that decree, and to review this last decree the case is brought here by appeal.

Mr. C. J. Hillyer and Mr. J. H. Ralston for appellants.

Mr. Eppa Hunton and Mr. Henry Wise Garnett for appellees.

It is respectfully submitted that the evidence in these cases does not show such open, notorious and continuous possession