Lanier v. Alison

Decision Date04 June 1887
PartiesLANIER v. ALISON and another.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

Syllabus by the Court

Equity will not entertain a bill to enforce merely the legal title to land.

The ancient equity doctrine, which would refuse an injunction to restrain waste, where a bill is filed for an account, has been greatly modified; and in cases where irremediable mischief is being done or threatened, such as the extraction of ores from a mine, or the cutting down of timber, an injunction will issue, though the title to the premises be in litigation.

An act of the general assembly of Georgia, providing that in all applications to enjoin the cutting of timber, or boxing the same for turpentine purposes, it shall not be necessary to aver or prove insolvency, may be administered by the equity courts of the United States.

Lanier & Anderson, for complainant.

Garrard & Meldrim, for respondents.

SPEER J.

May D Lanier, a citizen of the state of Maryland, brings her bill against J. R. Alison, of Irwin county, and B. D. Britton, of Echols county, and alleges that she is the owner of lot of land No. 83, in the Thirteenth district of Echols county, and lot of land No. 68, in the same district of Echols county containing 490 acres each; that the deeds were properly recorded; that during the life-time of her father Charles Day, he owned one lot and controlled the other, and took special pains to protect the lots from intrusion by squatters and other trespassers; that Alison & Britton addressed a letter to her father on the twenty-eighth of July, 1883, stating that they had been informed that he held the genuine title to the lots, and asking him to put a price on them. Her father replied that he was unwilling to lease them for turpentine purposes, but would sell them for $1.50 per acre. Notwithstanding this actual notice, and additional notice from one Frank Kirkland, her agent, that the true title was in her father, and a letter from Henry C. Day calling Alison & Britton's attention to the former correspondence, the defendants, in December, 1883, entered on the lands, cut, hacked, and boxed the trees for turpentine purposes, and have continued to do so, injuring complainant $5,000, or other large sum; that complainant is remediless at law, because she cannot ascertain the amount of crude rosin gum, and turpentine which has been taken from the land; and that equity should intervene to prevent a multiplicity of suits. She also alleges that the defendants have some pretended title which operates as a fraud on her title, and should be canceled. She prays for an injunction, for the production of the books and accounts, and also the deeds and other contracts in writing under which they claim the right to enter and use said lands, to be delivered up and canceled. Complainant waives discovery. To the bill is appended an abstract of the deeds upon which complainant relies, showing apparently a good title. Several amendments have been filed to the bill; one averring that Alison & Britton have executed mortgages on said land in favor of J. P. Williams, a citizen of Chatham county, state of Georgia,-- one dated twenty-second June, 1883, for $4,821.43; another twenty-third January, 1884, for $3,500; that these mortgages were in fraud of the right of complainant; that the mortgagee, J. P. Williams, had notice of complainant's title, because the deeds were recorded; that Alison &...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Staples v. Rossi
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1901
    ... ... 253; Shipley v. Ritter, 7 Md. 408, 61 Am. Dec. 371; ... Smith v. Rock, 59 Vt. 232, 9 A. 551; De La Croix ... v. Villere, 11 La. Ann. 39; Lanier v. Alison, ... 31 F. 100; United States v. Guglard, 79 F. 23; ... Smith v. Flick, 69 Pa. 474; King v ... Campbell, 85 F. 814; Disbrow v ... ...
  • Rutherford v. The Lucerne Canal and Power Company
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1904
    ... ... Shannon (Ind. Ty.), 40 S. W., 584; ... Harmon v. Landers (Tex.), 41 S. W., 378; Rakes ... v. Rustin Co. (Va.), 22 S. E., 498; Lanier v ... Allison, 31 F. 100; Ry. Co. v. Hussey, 61 F ... 231; McClosky v. Doherty (Ky.), 30 S. W., 649; ... Griffith v. Hilliard (Vt.), 25 ... ...
  • Richardson v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 31 Enero 1913
    ... ... to the premises be in litigation. Erhardt v. Boaro, ... 113 U.S. 537, 5 Sup.Ct. 565, 28 L.Ed. 1116; Lanier v ... Alison (C.C.) 31 F. 100 ... There ... is no allegation in the bill that the defendant is cutting or ... threatening to cut any ... ...
  • Wallula Pac. Ry. Co. v. Portland & S. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Washington
    • 19 Octubre 1906
    ... ... defendant's solvency or ability to respond in damages ... Wood v. Braxton et al. (C.C.) 54 F. 1005. In Lanier ... v. Alison and another (C.C.) 31 F. 100, it was said that the ... ancient rule has been greatly modified, and ... [154 F. 905] ... in cases ... ...
  • 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