90. Bowers v. Cole, 129 Minn. 276, 152 N. W. 534.

91. Watford Oil & Gas Co. v. Shipman, 233 111. 9, 84 N. E. 631; Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana v. Hayne, 138 La. 555, 70 So. 509.

92. See Charleston etc. R. v. Leech, 33 S. C. 175, 11 S. E. 631; editorial note 29 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 788.

93. Royston v. Miller, 76 Fed. 50; Maupin v. Gains, 125 Ark. 181. 188 S. W. 552; Bissell v. Pierce, 184 111. 60, 56 N. E. 374; Chandler v. Chandler, - Miss. -, 71 So. 811; Welch v. Anderson, 1 Nev. 348; Herbert v. Smith, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 493; Byers v. Wackman.. 16 Ohio St. 440; Hayes' Appeal, 123 Pa. 110, 16 Atl. 600; Meurer v. Stakes, 246 Pa. 393, 92 Atl. 506; Burks v. Burks, 7 Baxt.

One of two or more joint trustees has no right to demand a partition.97 They cannot make a voluntary partition, having the legal title only, and the court will not decree an involuntary partition, which could operate only on the legal title, and would consequently he nugatory.

That one who has conveyed the legal title to his undivided interest as security by way of mortgage or

(Tenn.) 353; Short v. Patton, 79 W. Va. 179, 90 S. E. 598.

94. Williams v. Wiggand, 53 111. 233; Ellis v. Hill, 162 111. 577, 44 N. E. 858; Heaton v. Dearden, 16 Beav. 147. That he must be entitled to a conveyance in order that he may ask for partition, see French v. McMillion, 79 W. Va. 639, L. R. A. 1917D 228, 91 S. E. 538.

95. Gerard v. Buckley, 137 Mass. 475; Story v. Palmer, 46 N. J. Eq. 1, 18 Atl. 363; Condict v. Condict, 73 N. J. Eq. 301, 75

Atl. 815; Morse v. Morse, 85 N. Y. 53; Thebaud v. Schemerhorn, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 72; Side v. Brenner-man, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 273; Harris v. Larkins, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 488; Taylor v. Grange, 13 Ch. D. 223; Swaine v. Denby, 14 Ch. D. 326.

96. See Mason v. Mason, 219 111. 609, 76 N. E. 692.

97. Baldwin v. Humphrey, 44 N. Y. 609; Brown v. Lutheran Church, 23 Pa. 495; Latshaw's Appeal, 122 Pa. 142, 9 Am. St. Rep. 76, 15 Atl. 676.

Real Property.

[ Sec. 204 deed of trust, is entitled to demand a partition,98 involves the application, it is conceived, not of a general rule that one who has an equitable title may demand such relief, but of the theory that, as regards third persons, he is still to be regarded as the owner of the property.

- Questions as to title. A court of equity, in the cause of a proceeding for partition, does not ordinarily, apart from statute, undertake to settle a question as to the legal title which may arise between the parties thereto,99 but it will not infrequently retain jurisdiction of the proceeding for a reasonable time in order to give the complainant an opportunity to establish his title at law.1 In some states, however, by force of statute or otherwise, a court of equity is regarded as authorized to determine, in the partition proceeding, questions as to the legal title,2 and in any

98. Upham v. Bradley, 17 Me. 423; Bradley v. Fuller, 23 Pick. (Ky.) 1; Taylor v. Blake, 109 Mass. 513; Budde v. Rebenack, 137 Mo. 179, 38 S. W. 910.

99. La Cotts v. Pike, 91 Ark. 26, 134 Am. St. Rep. 48, 120 S. W. 144; Pierce v. Rollins, 83 Me. 172, 22 Atl. 110; Pond v. Hussey, 111 Me. 297, 89 Atl. 14; Warren v. Warren, 115 Mich. 95, 114 N. W. 867; Chamberlain v. Waples, 193 Mo. 96, 91 S. W. 934; Hanneman v. Richter, 62 N. J. Eq. 365, 52 Atl. 1131, 63 N. J. Eq. 803, 52 Atl. 177; Clark v. Roller, 199 U. S. 541, 50 L. Ed. 300.

1. McCall v. Carpenter, 18 Harv. (U. S.) 297, 15 L. Ed. 389; Harrison v. Taylor, 111 Ala. 317, 19 So. 986; Cole v. Burnett, 119 Ark. 386, 177 S. W. 1146; Fenton v. Steere, 76 Mich. 405, 43 N. W.

437; Havens v. Sea Shore Land Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 142, 41 Atl. 755; Country Homes Land Co. v. De Gray, 71 N. J. Eq. 283, 71 Atl. 340; Bearden v. Benner, 120 Fed. 690; Gilbert v. Hopkins, 171 Fed. 704.

2. Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19, 77 Pac. 712; Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 111 Am. St. Rep. 77, 37 So. 722; Gage v. Reid, 104 111. 509; Hurlbut v. Talbot, 273 111. 356, 112 N. E. 697; Branson v. Studabaker, 133 Ind. 147, 33 N. E. 98; Bland v. Bland, 105 Miss. 478, 62 So. 641; Phillips v. Dorris, 56 Neb. 293, 76 N. W. 55; Satterlee v. Kobbe, 173 N. Y. 91, 65 N. E. 952; French v. Goin, 75 Ore. 255, 146 Pac. 91; McGee v. Hall, 23 S. C. 388; Womach v. Sandygren, 96 Wash. 12, 164 Pac, 600; Pillow v. S. W. etc. Imp. Co., state, it seems, courts of equity will adjudicate in reference to the legal title if this involves merely a construction of the language of some particular instrument.3 It does not seem that, in any case, a court of equity will refuse to proceed in the partition proceeding, merely because a defendant denies complainant's title, unless it is satisfied that there is a bona fide question in this regard.4

Closely associated .with the rule that a court of equity will not, in the course of a proceeding for parti tion, adjudicate questions of title, is the rule, still recognized in a number of states, that the plaintiff in the proceeding must be in actual or constructive possession of the land,5 from which it follows that the holding by a defendant of possession adversely to plaintiff constitutes a good and sufficient defense.6 A court of equity may, however, if it has jurisdiction otherwise to ascertain the rights of the parties, make a decree for partition irrespective of whether the plaintiff

92 Va. 144, 53 Am. St. Rep. 804, 23 S. E. 32; Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216; Smith v. Vineyard, 58 W. Va. 98, 51 S. E. 871.

3. Scott v. Guernsey, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 163; Simmons v. Hendricks, 8 Ired. (43 N. C.) 84; Hor-ton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478; Reed v. Robertson, 45 Mo. 580.

4. Heinze v. Butte etc., Min. Co., 126 Fed. 1, 61 C. C.' A. 63; Smith v. Butler, 15 Dist. Col. App. 345; Keil v. West, 21 Fla. 508; Overton's Heirs v. Wool-folk, 6 Dana (Ky.) 374; Hooper v. DeVries, 115 Mich. 231, 73 X. W. 132; Lueas v. King, 10 N. J. Eq. 277; In re McMahon's Estate, 21l Pa. 292, 60 Atl. 787.