Woolfolk v. Graves

• Decision Date: 12 January 1911
• Citation: 113 Va. 182,69 S.E. 1039
• Parties: WOOLFOLK et al. v. GRAVES et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

69 S.E. 1039

113 Va. 182

WOOLFOLK et al.

v.GRAVES et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 12, 1911.

1. Injunction (§ 118^*)—Equity (§ 427*)— Trespass— Sufficiency of Bill—Conformity of Decree to Pleadings.

A bill to restrain cutting timber on land described alleged that the land was part of a tract left for life to complainant E.. remainder to W., and complainant D.; that W. transfer red his interest to E., and recited the will book in which the will was recorded and the page of the book, and exhibited the deed of W. to E., alleged possession since 1873, and that the timber was kept for the maintenance of buildings and fences on the rest of the tract; that complainants had very little timber aside from that which could be used for that purpose; that the injuries could not be adequately compensated; that defendants were of doubtful solvency, and claimed the land by reason of the erroneous location of the boundary line of their adjoining land, and prayed for an injunction and general relief. Held, that the bill sufficiently set out complainants' title, and that the timber was essential to the enjoyment of their land, and that without equitable interference they would suffer irreparable injury, and that a decree fixing the location of the boundary line and perpetually enjoining defendants from further trespassing on complainants' land did not go beyond the scope of the bill.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 223-242. 1001-1014; Dec. Dig. § 118;* Equity, Dec. Dig. § 427.*]

2. Injunction (§ 194*)—Relief Granted— Complete Relief.

In a suit to restrain defendants from cutting timber on land claimed by complainants and in their possession, to which defendants, who owned adjoining land, claimed title as being a part of their land under a survey which located the boundary line so as to include the land in question, the court, in addition to granting an injunction, may also adjudicate the title, as jurisdiction in equity, having once attached for the purpose of injunction, will be retained until the whole controversy is decided.

[Ed. Ncite.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 414; Dec. Dig. § 194.*]

3. Boundaries (§ 3*)—Evidence—Marks on Ground.

In locating a disputed boundary line, marks on the ground are entitled to preference over courses and distances.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-41; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Spotsylvania County.

Action by E. M. Graves and another against Samuel Woolfolk and another. Judgment for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Gordon & Gordon and S. P. Powell, for appellants.

Carter & Carter, for appellees.

CARDWELL, J. In July, 1906, E. M. Graves and Daisy E. Griggs, her daughter, filed their bill in this cause against Lucian Comfort and Samuel Woolfolk, in which they allege that B. F. Graves, the husband of E. M. Graves and father of Daisy E. Griggs, departed this life about the year 1885, and that by his last will and testament, duly probated in Spotsylvania county court, he devised the "Home Place, " containing about 375 acres of land, to his said wife for life, with remainder to said Daisy E. Graves and W. W. Graves, and that the latter had conveyed his one-half interest in remainder in said land to his mother, the said E. M. Graves; that a portion of the 375 acres consisted of a detached parcel of land, containing 56 1/2 acres, as shown by a survey andplat thereof made by J. H. Biscoe on March 4, 1904, exhibited with the bill and marked "Exhibit B"; and that the complainants' title to said land is uncontrovertible, and they and those under whom complainants claim have had and held open, notorious, and adverse possession of said land since 1873, the boundaries of which are well known to a great number of persons, including the defendants. The bill further alleges that most of the said tract of land is open and in cultivation; that the 56 1/2 acres (by survey) charged on the land books of the county of Spotsylvania as containing 55 acres is situated a short distance from the residue of the 375 acres, and upon this detached portion there is a very fine growth of timber, which has been kept for the maintenance and keeping up of the buildings and fences, there being very little other timber on the place suitable for such purposes. It is further alleged that a few months prior to the filing of the bill one John M. Holladay, county surveyor of Spotsylvania county, as complainants were informed, not having apprised them of his purpose to do so, undertook to survey and lay off a part of said tract of land (the 56 1/2 acres) described in the plat and survey marked "Exhibit B" (the plat, etc., made by Biscoe above mentioned) for Lucian Comfort and Samuel Woolfolk (defendants), and that complainants were further informed by the said Comfort and Woolfolk that they, by reason of the said ex parte survey, claim such part of the said tract of land as the said Holladay surveyed for them. It is further alleged that complainants did not know where said Holladay undertook to run his lines on the 56 1/2-acre tract, but to their surprise they, on the day before the filing of their bill, July 30, 1906, learned that said Lucian Comfort and Samuel Woolfolk had a large force of hands upon the said tract of land felling, manufacturing, and hauling, off much of the valuable timber thereon, and refused to desist; that complainants claimed and believed that the said Comfort and Woolfolk, well knowing that they were not upon their own land or within the boundaries contained in their title deeds, but relying alone upon the ex parte and doubtful accuracy of such survey as the said Holladay had made for them, had undertaken to enter upon the said lands of the complainants where they or their servants were then engaged in cutting down and manufacturing into cross-ties the young growth of timber thereon, thereby inflicting irreparable injury to the property of complainants; and that the said Comfort and Woolfolk were both of doubtful solvency, and unless they were restrained from their unwarranted, assumptive, illegal, and damaging action great and irreparable injury would be done unto complainants, as the said Comfort and Wool-folk claimed the right to cut timber from some 15 acres of said land and asserted their right and purpose to do so. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction, which was awarded, restraining the defendants, etc., from further cutting, manufacturing, or hauling off the timber cut on any part of the 56 1/2 acres of land described in the said plat (Exhibit B), until the further order of the court, and for general relief.

To this bill the defendants filed their joint demurrer and answer, which demurrer was overruled, and, upon a hearing of the cause upon its merits on the bill and the exhibits therewith, the answer thereto and the exhibits therewith, and depositions of numerous witnesses examined for both complainants and defendants, the circuit court adjudicated and fixed the line dividing the lands of the complainants from those of the defendants and perpetuated the temporary injunction theretofore awarded in the cause, specifying that the defendants, etc., are perpetually enjoined, restrained, and forbidden to any further interfere with or trespass upon the lands of the complainants westwardly of the line defined in the decree, and further adjudged that complainants recover of the defendants their costs, etc. From that decree the defendants obtained this appeal.

The overruling of their demurrer to the bill constitutes appellants' first assignment of error.

In short, the contentions of appellants are (1) that appellees' bill fails to show any title to the land in question in the appellees; (2) that if they claim through adverse possession no facts are stated showing what dominion they have had over the land, to wit, the 15 acres; (3) that the bill fails to show a fair prima facie case in support of the appellees' title; and (4) that appellees should have not only shown a prima facie title to the land, but should have set out the facts relied on to show that without equitable interference they would suffer irreparable injury, or that their remedy at law was not adequate and complete, and that, as the bill of appellees does not measure up to these requirements, the demurrer thereto should have been sustained.

We are unable to see the force of either of these contentions as applied to the bill in this case. It is true that, where one claims under a paper title, he should generally exhibit his title papers or copies thereof, or such of them at least as will make out a prima facie case of title; but where the bill, as in this case, alleges not only a paper title and exhibits title papers evidencing the same, but alleges adverse possession of the land, and recites facts showing that the acts of ownership done thereon constitute adverse possession for the statutory period necessary to ripen his possession into a complete title, the general rule obtaining where the claim to the land rests upon a paper title does not apply.

The bill here recites that appellees acquired their title through the will of B. F. Graves, deceased, probated in 1885—E. M. Graves a life estate in the land and Daisy E. Griggs a one-half interest therein in remainder and in fee, reciting the will book in which the said will was recorded in the clerk's office of the county in which the land lies, naming the page where the will was so recorded, and with the bill is exhibited the deed by which W. W. Graves, who acquired the other one-half interest in the land under his said father's will, conveyed the same to his mother, the said E. M. Graves. Their bill, as we have seen, not only alleges title to the land, and the sources from which it was derived, but sets out facts to show that the destruction of the timber on the 56% acres involved not only the loss of the value of the timber itself, but great deterioration in the value of the cleared...