Nichols v. Jones
| Citation | 19 F. 855 |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. JONES and another. [1] |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1884 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The complainant's bill shows that on the seventh of May 1873, Henry Clews being the owner and in possession of certain mineral lands in Calhoun county, in this state, sold and conveyed for value the same to John M. Guiteau, who afterwards, on the sixth of June, 1876, sold and conveyed to John P. McEwan, and that the latter, with his wife, on the sixth of March, 1880, by proper deed, sold and conveyed the same to complainant, and that all of the said conveyances were properly acknowledged and recorded in the county of Calhoun prior to the year 1880, except the one last mentioned. Further, that the defendants claim title to the same premises by virtue of an attachment suit instituted in the circuit court of Calhoun county early in the year 1880, by defendant Jones against said Henry Clews, a citizen of New York, in which suit said lands were attached, a judgment recovered, and the lands sold by the sheriff of Calhoun county under execution to said Jones on May 31, 1880. Further, that at a former term of this court complainant had instituted a suit for the possession of said lands against one Ashley, a tenant of defendant Jones in possession of the same, and recovered a judgment, which was executed by the marshal, who, under a writ of habere facias possessionem placed complainant in possession, and that complainant took possession and held the same by his agent and tenant, and that thereafter the defendant, with fraud and illegal influence over the said tenant, dispossessed complainant possessed himself, and has ever since detained and now holds the same. Further, that complainant has instituted an action for damages against said Jones in the circuit court of Calhoun county, because of his said trespass, which action is now pending. The bill also alleges that the lands are valuable only as mineral lands; that defendants are mining and removing ore, and thereby inflicting irreparable damage; that defendant Jones is insolvent, and defendant Morgan has little, if any, means; and that only by a multiplicity of suits at law can complainant, if at all, protect his rights.
The defendants, by answer not sworn to, deny that complainant is owner of the lands described, and allege fraud and collusion in the conveyances from Clews to complainant's grantor, and the fraud and collusion of complainant and Ashley in obtaining the judgment in this court for possession, which judgment has been set aside and defendants admitted as parties, and that the suit is still pending; and they deny all fraud and illegal influence in obtaining possession from complainant's tenant as set forth in the bill; and all other matters charged in the bill are admitted, the defendants particularly claiming bona fide title under the attachment proceedings set forth in bill and answer.
An admission is now filed in the record that when the bill in this case was filed an action of ejectment by the complainant against the defendants for the land in controversy was pending in this court; that on November 5, 1883, the complainant dismissed his said action of ejectment, and that there is now no action of ejectment pending by the complainant for the land in controversy. An inspection of the record shows that the said action of ejectment was dismissed under an order of court rendered at last term compelling the complainant to elect between his action of ejectment and this equity action. At this time a motion, after due notice, is made for an injunction to restrain, pendente lite, the defendants from wasting the lands in controversy by removing the mineral deposits therefrom. The defendants admitting the facts of removal of minerals, resist the motion on the two grounds-- of want of equity in the bill, and of diligence on the part of complainant.
D. P. Lewis, for complainant.
Ward & Cabaniss and J. D. Brandon, for defendants.
It seems clear that if complainant has brought his case within our equity jurisdiction a proper and meritorious case for an injunction is shown. The admitted damages committed and being committed by defendants are irreparable, restitution being impossible, and the money value not being ascertainable, and the defendants are insolvent, or next door to insolvency. The defendants first urge that as no suit in ejectment is pending, and no specific fraud alleged in the bill,...
To continue reading
Request your trial