The complainant is in peaceable possession, and his right to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, to quiet his title, cannot be denied. Ward v. Tallman, 65 N. J. Eq. 310, 55 Atl. 225; Fittichauer v. Metropolitan Fire Proofing Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 429, 61 Atl. 646. His right to relief, however, depends upon the soundness of his claim that he owns an estate in fee simple; and unless this estate is established the bill must be dismissed.
The defendants are put by the statute under which this suit is brought in the position of plaintiffs in ejectment. Ward v. Tallman, 65 N. J. Eq. 310, 55 Atl. 225. Such an action would clearly be barred, not only by the statute in question, but also by the following section. The effect of the adverse possession of the complainant and his predecessor in title is shown by the case of Spottiswoode v. Morris & Essex Railroad Company, 61 N. J. Law, 322, 40 Atl. 505, which contains an interpretation of the statute herein above quoted, and holds that by force of that section possession held adversely and uninterrupted for a period of 20 years will confer a title which will support an action of ejectment.
When the complainant has shown these jurisdictional facts, he awaits the presentation by a proper pleading of the defendant's claim or title before making any disclosure of his own title. Ward v. Tallman, 65 N. J. Eq. 310, 55 Atl. 225. Any defendant may avoid all expense, if he sees fit to abandon his claim; and in such case a decree pro confesso goes against him without costs.