Others v. Little

• Decision Date: 31 August 1851
• Docket Number: No. 55.,55.
• Parties: Bond, Murdock and others, plaintiffs in error. vs. Wm. G. Little, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 Ga. 395

Bond, Murdock and others, plaintiffs in error. vs. Wm. G. Little, defendant in error.

No. 55.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

AUGUST TERM, 1851.

In Equity, in Crawford Superior Court. Decided by Judge Stark, February Term, 1851.

This was a bill of peace, filed to quiet litigation.

The bill charged, that an execution in favor of John D. Winn, issued from a judgment recorded in 1841, was levied upon a lot of land in Crawford County; a claim was interposed to said land by the defendant in error, returnable to the February Term, 1842, of Crawford Superior Court. After having been continued from term to term and placed upon the appeal by consent, at the February Term, 1844, this claim was withdrawn. The land was sold on the first Tuesday in April, 1844, and Bond and Murdock became the purchasers. Murdock and Ewell Webb took a transfer of the fi. fa. of John D. Winn, alleging that they paid a valuable consideration therefor.

The bill alleges that there was a previous sale of the land (pending the claim, under a fi. fa. against Thomas Little,) when Ewell Webb became the purchaser, and after obtaining the Sheriff's title thereto, conveyed one-half of said lot of land to Bond and Murdock, by quit-claim deed. After the first Sheriff's sale, Thomas Little, who was in possession, attorned to Webb by a written agreement.

The bill alleges that an action of ejectment in favor of Wm. G. Little against Thomas Little, tenant in possession, was brought to the August Term, 1843, of Crawford Superior Court. This case was put on the appeal by consent, and at August Term, 1845, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants in ejectment. At the February Term, 1846, Wm. G. Little commenced another action of ejectment, and at August Term, 1846, a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which an appeal was taken out on the appeal. At the February Term, 1848, said case came on for trial before a special Jury, and aftereach party had produced and submitted his evidence, William G. Little dismissed his said action.

The bill alleges that at the August Term, 1849, William G. Little commenced another action of ejectment for the recovery of said land.

The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the action of ejectment, and to quiet the plaintiffs in error in their possession of the premises, and from further litigation and expense in relation to the land.

Judge Stark sanctioned the bill and granted the injunction.

The defendant in his answer, states that Thomas Little entered into the possession of the said lot of land, in 1833, as the tenant of defendant, and as such tenant, held possession of the same until the Sheriff's sale in 1844; that he withdrew the claim interposed by him, because he was advised that under the judgment of the Court (excluding a deed from one John B. Adair to himself) he would be precluded from any further assertion of his right. He states that he paid Adair a valuable consideration for the land, and believed that the deed executed by Adair to him, was a valid deed. The answer admits that Bond, Murdock and Webb, bought the land as charged in the bill, but with notice, which was publicly given by the agent of defendant. The answer charges that the attornment of Thomas Little to Webb, was without the knowledge and consent of defendant.

The answer admits the bringing of the action of ejectment, and that the first was alleged by the filing of a bill by the plaintiffs in error, and the defendant was unprepared to try the case by the sudden dismissal of complainant's bill. The answer denies that the second action was brought to harass and vex the plaintiffs in error, and defendant charges that at the August Term, 1846, a verdict was rendered in his favor by a petit Jury. A second bill was filed in 1847, which was dismissed upon the coming in of defendant's answer. At the February Term, 1848, the plaintiffs in error repudiating their Sheriff's deed, introduced one from Adair, the feoffer of defendant, by which he was wholly surprised, and forced to dismiss his cause, to avoid a verdict against him.

Upon the coming in of the answer, counsel for the defendant moved the Court to dissolve the injunction, and dismiss the bill for want of equity, which motion the Court sustained, and counsel for plaintiffs in error excepted.

Hunter and Montford, for plaintiffs in error, insisted upon the following points and authorities:

1st. The Court erred in ruling that the bill did not make such a case as entitled the complainants to relief in Equity, and in dismissing the same. 2 Story's Com. §859. 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 232, '3. 1 P. Williams, 671. 2 Vesey, junior, 293. 1 Vernon, 22, 265, 287, 308. 3 Johns. Rep. 558. 2 Johns. Abr. 281. 3 Kelly, 239. 4 Johns. Rep. 173, 497. 26 Wendell, 143.

2d. The Court erred in ruling that the answer of the defendant had sworn off the equity in complainant's bill, and in dissolving the injunction.

3d. That the answer of defendant places the right of plaintiff in ejectment on no new matter of fact or law not put in issue before, and if the plaintiff has neglecled to make a proper defence, Equity will not relieve him. 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 103, and authorities cited.

S. & R. P. Hall, for defendant in error, insisted that,

1st. Because in cases of common injunctions, where the answer comes in, denying the merits of the bill, it is a matter of course to dissolve the injunction. Poor vs. Carlton, 3 Sumner. Eden on Injunctions, p. 145. Hoffman vs. Livingston, 1 Johns. C. R. 26. As to whether the answer is responsive. Eastman vs. McAlpin, 1 Kelly.

2d. The bill was properly dismissed; because admitting that defendant's title was originally defective, time had matured it into a perfect title; as to adverse possession and color of tide, see Conyer vs. Kenan, 4 Geo. R. Tate's executor vs. Southard, 3 Hawks. 5 Geo. R. 6. Ibid, 39. Ibid, 271. Ibid, 261. 7 Ibid, 387. 4 Halst. 149. 3d. Because there had never been but two verdicts in this case—one for the plaintiff in ejectment, and the other for the defendant—and before a bill of peace can be sanctioned and maintained in such a case, there must be several verdicts satisfactorily establishing the defendant\'s right at Law. 2 Story\'s Eq. Ju-§859. Adams\' Eject. 316. Eden on Injunction, 414, \'15, \'16. 1 P. Wm. 671, \'72. Earl of Darlington vs. Bowe, 1 Eden Ch. R. 270, \'71, \'72. 2 Sch. & Lef 208, \'9. 3 J. R. 595, \'96, 601, \'2.

4th. A Court of Chancery will never interfere to restrain such proceedings, as long as there are pertinent and material questions, affecting the rights of parties, undetermined at Law. Strother vs. Lucas, 12 Peters' R. 410, 433.

5th. Courts of Equity will never try legal titles; they leave this to Courts of Law. Moore vs. Ferrell et al. 1 Kelly, 9.

6th. Under the rules laid down, this bill should have been dismissed, as there had never been the requisite number of trials at Law, satisfactorily establishing complainant's title, and because the answer shows that their own fraud occasioned the dismissal of the second action of ejectment. Eden on Injunction, 88.

7th. Although the answer in this case waves objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, it does not take away the right and power to dismiss the bill. 3 J. R. 596, 601, '2.

By the Court.—Warner, J. delivering the opinion.

This is a bill filed by the complainants, praying for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from the further prosecution of an action of ejectment for the recovery of the possession of a lot of land in the County of Crawford, on the ground that there have been repeated trials between the parties at Law, in which the title of the complainants to the premises in dispute, has been satisfactorily established. The Court below, on the coming in of the defendant's answer, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the bill, for want of equity.

The last question which we shall consider is, that which relates to the complainants\' equity, as apparent on the face of their bill and exhibits attached thereto.

This application of the complainants, is what is termed in the hooks, a bill of peace, the object of which is, to quiet fruitless litigation.

On what principle do Courts of Equity interfere by injunction, in such cases?

The principle on which Courts of Equity grant relief in such cases is to suppress useless litigation; to prevent multiplicity of suits; to restrain oppressive litigation, and to prevent irreparable mischief. 2 Story's E...