King v. Stuart

• Decision Date: 07 October 1897
• Citation: 84 F. 546
• Parties: KING v. STUART et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

84 F. 546

KING v. STUART et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Virginia.

October 7, 1897

Maynard F. Stiles and Daniel Trigg, for complainant.

Burns &amp Ayres, for defendants.

PAUL District Judge.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Henry C. King, to restrain the defendants from cutting and carrying away the timber of the plaintiff on certain lands claimed by him, lying in Buchanan county, Va., the same being part of a tract of 500,000 acres lying in the states of Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky. The plaintiff traces his title from a grant by the common-wealth of Virginia to Robert Morris, dated June 23, 1795, and, through successive conveyances to himself. The bill, after setting out the plaintiff's title, alleges:

'That the title of your orator, as above set forth, has been sustained and held to be valid by repeated adjudications of this court, as well as of the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia, in which court said land was for many years held and managed as a trust estate. that said tract of land is wild and mountainous and heavily timbered with valuable growth of poplar, oak, walnut, and other valuable trees, which constitute the principal and almost sole value of said land, the same being practically worthless for agricultural, grazing, and other like purposes, and wholly worthless for such purposes to your orator, and unsalable therefor; and the portion of said land which is situated in said district was purchased by your orator solely on account of the timber aforesaid, and for the purpose of cutting, manufacturing, and marketing the same, and employing your orator's capital therein, and securing the profits therefrom. That that portion of said tract of land which lies in the state of Virginia is bounded on the western side by the state of Kentucky, and on the northern and eastern sides by the state of West Virginia, towards which states all the creeks and streams flow, which form the natural and only roadways to and from said lands, and the timber upon said lands can only be practicably removed therefrom to the markets therefor by hauling or floating the same out of the said state and into the state of Kentucky or West Virginia; and the said creeks, especially Knox creek and its tributaries, and a wagon road leading therefrom down Bull creek, in West Virginia, to the Norfolk & Western Railroad, furnish ready means and facilities for the removal of timber from said land. That defendant Pleasants, under a pretended purchase from defendant Stuart, has wrongfully and unlawfully, and without the consent of, and against the warning and protest of, your orator, entered upon your orator's land in said district, and has cut down, and is preparing and threatening to remove, a large quantity of valuable walnut and other timber, and to cut and remove other timber, and your orator believes and avers that, unless restrained by order of this court, said Pleasants and his agents, and those claiming under him, will speedily remove the said timber out of said state of Virginia, to be removed and shipped away upon the cars of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. That prior to the cutting of said timber by said defendant the said Pleasants inquired of your orator's counsel the situation and location of his said land, with the proposed purpose of avoiding any act of trespass thereon, and was advised by your orator's counsel that said tract of land embraced nearly all the country drained by Knox creek and its tributaries, and the neighborhood from which the said Pleasants has since cut said timber as aforesaid, and was shown a map representing and delineating the survey as made by the said W. D. Sell, C.E. That defendant Stuart, under whom said Pleasants professes to have cut said timber, claims, as your orator is informed, to be the owner of some tract of land adjoining or overlapping the land of your orator, but your orator declares that said Stuart is not, nor is any one claiming under him, nor was any one under whom Stuart claims, ever in possession of said land, or any part thereof, and the same is entirely in possession of your orator, and, if said Stuart claims under any writing or paper title, the nature and character thereof is unknown to your orator, but your orator declares the same to be wholly null and void; and, if such paper title shall be disclosed, then your orator will, by proper amendment or proceedings, declare and pray for the same to be adjudged and decreed to be null and void, and that the same be canceled and set aside. That said Stuart is also, as your orator is informed, participating in, and is interested in, the cutting and removal of said timber. That the cutting and removal of said timber is a practical destruction of your orator's land, and of the principal, and almost sole, value thereof to him, and is a permanent and irreparable injury and damage to the said land and to your orator, for which he has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, and wherefore your orator comes into this, your honor's court of chancery, and prays: That this his bill of complaint be received and filed in the said court, and that your orator have process of subpoena thereon against the said D. S. Pleasants and H. C. Stuart, requiring them, and each of them, to appear, and answer the allegations of said bill. That the said Pleasants and Stuart, and each of them, their servants, agents, and all persons acting or claiming under them, or either of them, be enjoined and restrained from entering upon or cutting or removing timber upon that portion of your orator's land situate in said state of Virginia, and from buying, selling, or trafficking in timber cut or to be cut thereon. That a receiver be appointed to take charge of the timber already cut by said defendants, and dispose of the same under the direction of the court.'

The defendant H. C. Stuart demurs to the bill, and assigns as grounds of demurrer:

'First. That the said plaintiff has a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law, and is not, therefore, entitled to relief in equity for the matters complained of in said bill. Second. The said bill is in other respects uncertain, informal, and insufficient, and for other reasons to be assigned at bar.'

The first ground of demurrer, viz. 'that the plaintiff has a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law, and is therefore, not entitled to relief in equity for the matters complained of in said bill,' presents a clearly defined and important question for decision. A demurrer to a bill in equity admits the truth of the allegations of fact in the bill so far as the same are well pleaded. 1 Frost.Fed.Prac. § 108. The defendants in this cause, by their demurrer, admit that the complainant has title to the land mentioned in the bill lying within this district, and that he is in possession of the same. They likewise admit that the defendants have no title to said land; that they are not in possession thereof. They admit that the land is wild and uncultivated; that it is heavily timbered with a...