Campbell v. Adsit

• Decision Date: 18 February 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 141,111 Mich. 575
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. ADSIT, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

70 N.W. 141

111 Mich. 575

CAMPBELL v. ADSIT, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 18, 1897

Application by James Campbell for a writ of mandamus to Allen C. Adsit Kent circuit judge. Writ denied.

Frederick W. Stevens, for relator.

Myron H. Walker, for respondent.

MONTGOMERY J.

One Francis A. Shafer filed a bill in the circuit court for Kent county against the relator, praying that the title to certain land of complainant be quieted, and also praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant from building a cement driveway and cement or stone coping upon land claimed to belong to complainant, and adjoining the boundary line between land owned by complainant, on the one side, and defendant, on the other. The circuit judge granted an injunction. The defendant moved to dissolve the injunction and, upon the application being refused, applies to this court for mandamus to compel the dissolution of the injunction.

The relator contends that a court of equity has not jurisdiction to settle a dispute over a boundary line, and, therefore that the court had no jurisdiction in this case to grant the injunctive relief prayed. The cases relied upon are Andries v. Railway Co. (Mich.) 63 N.W. 526; Wykes v. Ringleberg, 49 Mich. 567, 14 N.W. 498; Bresler v. Pitts, 58 Mich. 347, 25 N.W. 311. These cases undoubtedly establish the doctrine that a court of equity has not jurisdiction to settle every dispute relating to a boundary line, or, to use the language of Mr. Justice Campbell in the case last cited, that "there is no jurisdiction in a court of equity to settle boundaries merely because disputed and difficult of ascertainment." On the other hand, if a case is brought within some other head of equity jurisprudence, it is not conceived that the mere fact that there is involved in the question of the plaintiff's right a necessity for fixing a boundary line ousts the court of jurisdiction. This was determined in Wilmarth v. Woodcock, 58 Mich. 482, 25 N.W. 475; Id., 66 Mich. 331, 33 N.W. 400. See, also Stewart v. Carleton, 31 Mich. 270. The bill in this case sets out that plaintiff occupies the premises described in her bill, and has been in the full and complete possession thereof since the 28th of January, 1870; that there was an adjustment of the boundary line between herself and the prior owners of the lot occupied by defendant, upon the line now claimed, and that a fence was constructed upon this line, and...