Black v. Jackson

Citations

• 177 U.S. 349
• 20 S. Ct. 648
• 44 L. Ed. 801
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1804

Syllabus

<p>By a petition filed by Jackson against Black in the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma Territory, the following case was made: On the 17th day of November, 1896, Jackson made a homestead entry úpon the S.W. 4 sec. 26, T. 28, E. 2 east, I. M. The same land prior to that date had been embraced in a homestead entry made by Black, but that'entry was finally held for cancellation by the Secretary of the Interior, who by a decision rendered October 26,1896, denied Black’s motion for review and allowed Jackson to make entry of the land. After that decision Black continued to remain in possession of the west eighty acres of the tract, and refused and neglected to vacate the same, although requested to do so. He had upon the land a barbed wire fence and other improvements attached to the realty. It was alleged that he was financially unable to respond in damages for any injury he was causing the plaintiff by trespassing upon the land, and that plaintiff had no adequate remedy other than by this suit. The relief asked was a mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant from entering upon or in any manner trespassing upon or using any portion of the land embraced in the plaintiff’s homestead entry; from removing or in any manner destroying the fence or other improvements on the lands that were permanently attached thereto; and for such other and further relief as the court deemed just and right. ■The defendant filed an answer, but it was withdrawn that he might file a demurrer. He demurred to the application for an injunction upon the grounds, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the court was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The demurrér was overruled, and the defendant after excepting to that ruling filed an amended answer. In this answer he set up title in himself as a homestead settler, set forth the manner in which it had been acquired, alleged that the value of the property was 16000, an