Christy v. Scott

Supreme Court of the United States · 1852 · Property

55 U.S. 282 (1852)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyejectmenttrespass to try titleprior possessionmere trespasserintruderoutstanding titlepleading

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that on June 1, 1839, he was seised in fee of three tracts of land and that the defendant ejected him and kept him out of possession. The defendant filed multiple pleas, several of which did not assert title in the defendant but instead alleged defects in a supposed grant or chain of title under which the plaintiff might claim, including lack of Mexican executive approval, the plaintiff's citizenship, a limitations defense, and a Texas statute concerning frontier-league titles. The record did not contain the actual grants or title papers of either party, and it did not show how title had passed from the state to either side. The Supreme Court therefore addressed only the sufficiency of the pleaded defenses attacked by demurrer.

Issue

Whether, in an action in Texas to recover land, a defendant who shows no title in himself may defeat the plaintiff's claim merely by alleging defects in the plaintiff's supposed paper title or an outstanding title in the State, and whether the challenged pleas were legally sufficient. Also, whether the limitations plea was sufficient when it did not directly aver that the described tracts were part of the demanded premises.

Rule

A plaintiff's prior actual possession is sufficient to recover land from a mere intruder or trespasser who entered without title. In a trespass-to-try-title action conducted on ejectment principles, a defendant who does not set up title in himself cannot defend merely by attacking the plaintiff's supposed paper title or by asserting an outstanding title in another; the defendant's plea must answer the plaintiff's allegations, not the evidence the defendant conjectures the plaintiff will produce. A special defense tied to particular titles may require averments identifying the plaintiff's title only when the defense would be good against some titles and not others.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz had openly occupied a fenced ranch parcel outside El Paso for three years, grazing cattle there and maintaining the gate. Noah Briggs, who had no deed, grant, lease, or other claim of right, broke the lock, moved onto the parcel, and refused to leave, insisting Lena could not prove record title.

If Lena sues to recover possession, which is the strongest argument in her favor?

Explanation. The governing rule is that prior actual possession is enough to recover land from a mere trespasser or intruder who entered without title. The plaintiff still must recover on the strength of her own claim, but as against a defendant with no title at all, prior possession is sufficient. Noah cannot defeat Lena merely by pointing out that she lacks record proof.