Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon

• Decision Date: 25 February 1892
• Parties: NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CANNON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

49 F. 517

NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CANNON et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Montana.

February 25, 1892

F. M Dudley and Cullen, Sanders & Shelton, for complainant.

Toole &amp Wallace and McConnell & Clayberg, for defendants.

KNOWLES District Judge.

Plaintiff commenced an action in this court to quiet title to a certain tract of land in Lewis and Clarke county Mont. After the filing of the bill of complaint and the issuing of a subpoena. The defendants commenced an action of forcible entry and detainer against plaintiff, setting forth in their complaint that plaintiff had forcibly obtained and was retaining by force the premises in dispute. The plaintiff then applied to this court to restrain this action of forcible entry and detainer. A restraining order was obtained, and the cause, upon the application for an injunction, set down for a hearing during the present term of this court, and was argued and submitted. Plaintiff claims that this action would interfere with the proceedings in equity to quiet the title of plaintiff. The action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer in no way determines the title to the premises in dispute, or right to the possession thereof. Parks v. Barkley, 1 Mont. 514; Boardman v. Thompson, 3 Mont.387. Equity interferes by injunction to restrain an action at law to recover possession of real estate when a person seeking the injunction has an equitable title, and the person sought to be enjoined has a legal title, which has been obtained by fraud or mistake. In such a case the action at law is stayed until the equitable rights of the parties are determined. It is held that upon such a state of facts it would be giving the plaintiff in the action at law an unfair advantage to allow him to proceed and obtain judgment, but in this case the plaintiff has a legal title and claims actual possession of the premises, the title to which it would quiet. The issue in forcible entry and unlawful detainer in such a case as this is as to whether the defendant in that action by force obtained the possession of the premises from plaintiff, and withholds the same from plaintiff. This is not an issue presented in this case at bar for the consideration of the court. It cannot be called upon to enter any judgment or decree upon such an issue. There is no showing in the application for an injunction herein that plaintiff has not a good and legal defense to the action of forcible entry. It is an established rule in equity that a court will not enjoin an action at law when a party seeking the injunction has a good defense at law. Grand Chute v Winegar, 15 Wall. 373. There are presented no grounds of equitable defense to this action which should be first determined before a proper defense to the action at law could be maintained. Plaintiff has cited some English cases where criminal proceedings in the nature of forcible entry were enjoined: Mayor, etc., v. Pilkington, 2 Atk. 302; Montague v. Dudman, 2 Ves.Sr. 398; Attorney General v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 220. But it should be observed that these were...