McKinzie v. McCrory

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCALHOON, J.
CitationMcKinzie v. McCrory, 40 So. 483, 88 Miss. 86 (Miss. 1906)
Decision Date16 April 1906
PartiesALBERT L. MCKINZIE ET AL. v. ROBERT MCCRORY ET AL

April 1906

FROM the chancery court of Scott county, HON. JAMES L. MCCASKILL Chancellor.

McCrory and wife, appellees, were complainants in the court below McKinzie and wife, appellants, were defendants there. From a decree overruling a preliminary motion to dissolve an injunction, the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed and remanded.

Robert L. Bullard, for appellants.

Equity will never interfere in apprehended trespasses except in extreme cases where the injury would be irreparable and the title to the land is unquestioned. This is the well settled rule. Nevitt v. Gillaspie, 1 How. (Miss.), 108; Skipwith v. Dodds, 24 Miss. 487; Eskridge v. Eskridge, 51 Miss. 522; Coleman v. Hudspeth, 49 Miss. 562; 2 High on Injunctions, sec. 1513. There is only this exception, that where an appropriate action is pending to try the title, equity may restrain a trespass that will result in irreparable injury pending the trial of the title to preserve the property pending the litigation. Woods v. Riley, 72 Miss. 73 (s.c., 18 So. 384); Alcorn v. Alcorn, 76 Miss. 907 (s.c., 25 So. 877); Gulfcoast Co. v. Bowers, 80 Miss. 571 (s. c., 32 So. 113).

There is no action here to try the title. The alleged apprehended injury is trifling, and the respondents are solvent.

But the land is clearly shown to belong to McKenzie, and he was rightfully in possession of it.

Kirkland & Singleton, for appellees.

In the brief of counsel for appellants the rule is announced, "Equity will not interfere in apprehended trespasses, except in extreme cases where the injury would be irreparable, and the title to the land in question unquestioned." He says this is the settled rule and that there should be pending in a court of law a suit to try the title if it is denied.

This may have been, but is not now, the rule, since equity jurisdiction has been enlarged even to the extent of trying title to land, decreeing possession, etc. Constitution 1890, sec. 160; § 500, Code 1892, and annotations. If a court of equity first acquires jurisdiction it may proceed to final and complete relief, though the title and rights involved are of a legal as distinguished from an equitable character. Woods v. Riley, 72 Miss. 77 (s.c., 18 So. 384).

Even if this court reaches the conclusion the case ought, but for the constitution to be reversed on account of jurisdiction, sec. 147 thereof directs it to be affirmed.

OPINION

CALHOON, J.

Appellees obtained an injunction restraining appellants from trespassing on land, cutting valuable shade trees, moving fences and...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Lundy v. Greenville Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1937
    ...Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Harpeth Nat. Bank, 120 Miss. 505, 82 So. 329; Jennings v. Shapira, 131 Miss. 596, 95 So. 305; McKinzie v. McCrory, 86 Miss. 86, 40 So. 483; Stewart v. Belt, 19 So. 957; Bowen Hoskins, 45 Miss. 189, 7 Am. Rep. 728; Hill on Injunction 108; Hoagland v. Titus, 1 McC......
  • Canal Bank & Trust Co. v. Brewer
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1927
    ... ... Hudspeth, 49 Miss. 562; Ann. Cas ... 1915B 520; Citizens Bank of Belzoni v. Harpeth Nat'l ... Bank, 120 Miss. 505; McKenzie v. McCrory, 88 ... Miss. 86; Evans v. Hay, 101 Miss. 244; Alcorn v ... Saddler, 66 Miss. 221; Madison County v ... Paxton, 56 Miss. 679; Hill on ... ...
  • Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Belzoni v. Harpeth Nat. Bank of Franklin
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1919
    ... ... mere affidavits, but the case should proceed to final ... hearing. McKenzie v. McCrory, 88 Miss. 86, ... 40 So. 483. It is also a very grave question of law under the ... conflicting facts as to whether or not there was a ... ...
  • Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1906