Huffman v. Chedester.

Decision Date05 October 1943
Docket Number(No. 9473)
Citation126 W.Va. 73
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesJake Huffman v. Anna Chedester et al.

Injunction

"Where the answer to a bill upon which a temporary injunction has been awarded, clearly, fully, fairly, distinctly, and positively denies the material allegations of the bill, the trial chancellor, in the absence of proof to support the bill, should sustain a motion to dissolve the injunction, unless from the whole circumstances it appears that there is strong presumption of the plaintiff's equity and that the injunction should remain in force to preserve the status quo of the subject matter pending decision of the cause on its merits." Snodgrass v. Mohr, 115 W. Va. 507, 177 S. E. 190.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wirt County.

Suit by Jake Huffman against Anna Chedester and others for cancellation of a deed for an injunction. From a decree denying motion to dissolve temporary injunction, Anna Chedester and another appeal.

Reversed; injunction dissolved; and cause remanded.

L. D. Archer and Harper & Baker, for appellants. J. H. Smith and H. Paige Bell, Jr., for appellee.

Lovins, Judge:

Plaintiff, Jake Huffman (sometimes called "Hoffman"), filed his bill of complaint, with exhibits, in the Circuit Court of Wirt County against Anna Chedester, R. W. Chedester, and The Real Estate and Improvement Company of Baltimore City, a corporation, praying that a deed of conveyance from the corporate defendant to the Chedesters be cancelled as an alleged cloud on plaintiff's title, and that the Chedesters be enjoined from trespassing on certain land claimed by plaintiff.

A temporary injunction was awarded on the filing of the bill. Thereafter the Chedesters, after filing a demurrer, upon which no ruling appears in the record, and a verified answer supported by four affidavits, moved the dissolution of the injunction, which motion, heard on the bill, answer, exhibits, general replication to the answer, and without any proof being offered by plaintiff, was overruled and from the decree refusing to dissolve said injunction, the Chedesters appeal.

From the bill of complaint and exhibits filed therewith, it appears that this controversy arose with respect to the title to a tract of land containing 2.69 acres, which is embraced within the exterior boundary lines of a tract containing 5.5 acres. J. B. Merrill, common source of title, by deed dated December 2, 1902, conveyed 2.69 acres of the 5.5-acre tract, then owned by him, to Little Kanawha Railroad Company. Subsequently, Little Kanawha Railroad Company conveyed the 2.69 acres, together with other lands, to The Real Estate and Improvement Company of Baltimore City, immediate grantor of the Chedesters.

J. B. Merrill, having died intestate, his widow and heirs at law by deed bearing date July 7, 1919, conveyed the 5.5-acre tract to B. M. and B. T. Beeson, describing the same by its exterior boundary lines, making no exception of the 2.69-acre tract therefore conveyed to the Railroad Company. The Beesons conveyed, without exception, the 5.5-acre tract to W. H. Gibson, who thereafter conveyed the same to Harold Gibson, excepting "a certain right-ofway of the Wabash Railroad Company which runs through the land hereby conveyed". Harold Gibson conveyed the 5.5-acre tract to appellee Huffman by deed reading in part as follows: "This conveyance is made subject to the Right-of-Way of the Wabash Railroad Company, which runs through the above described tract or parcel of land".

The bill alleges that Merrill and his successors in title have had possession of the entire tract of 5.5 acres since the conveyance to the railroad company in 1902, except for a short interval when a part of the railroad company's land was used by contractors as a site for a bakery to produce bread for their workmen; that shortly after the railroad company acquired title to the 2.69-acre tract the building of the railroad was abandoned and possession of said tract was returned to J. B. Merrill; that the consideration for the deed from Merrill to the railroac company was the construction of a railroad and tha not having been completed, the consideration failed; anc that the defendants have entered on the land of plaintif and committed sundry acts of trespass such as buildin a fence through the land, placing a lock on a well, and threatening to tear down and remove part of a building used as a residence.

Defendants' answer admits that they entered upon the 2.69-acre tract, but asserts that there was no trespass involved as they are the owners of the same, and denies all material allegations of plaintiff's bill of complaint upon which injunctive relief could be predicated. It appears from one affidavit exhibited with the defendants' answer that the 2.69-acre tract of land has been entered on the land books for purposes of taxation since the year 1903 in the name of the railroad company and its successors in title. Three affidavits of residents of Wirt County, exhibited with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Kwass v. Kersey, 10622
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1954
    ... ... to dissolve, where it appears that the discretion has been soundly exercised, or where the contrary does not appear in the record.' See Huffman v. Chedester, 126 W.Va. 73, 27 ... Page 249 ... S.E.2d 272; City of Huntington v. Greene Line Terminal Company, 126 W.Va. 463, 28 S.E.2d 905; ... ...
  • State ex rel. McGraw v. Telecheck Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 16, 2003
    ...W.Va. 259, 79 S.E.2d 851 (appeal of order refusing to dissolve temporary injunction; injunction dissolved on appeal); Huffman v. Chedester, 126 W.Va. 73, 27 S.E.2d 272 (temporary injunction granted on filing of complaint and exhibits, answer filed, motion to dissolve denied, denial order ap......
  • State ex rel. McGraw v. TELECHECK SERVICES
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 23, 2003
    ...79 S.E.2d 851 (1954) (appeal of order refusing to dissolve temporary injunction; injunction dissolved on appeal); Huffman v. Chedester, 126 W.Va. 73, 27 S.E.2d 272 (1943) (temporary injunction granted on filing of complaint and exhibits, answer filed, motion to dissolve denied, denial order......
  • Huffman v. Chedester
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1943
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT