Cumbee v. Ritter

Citations

• 123 Va. 448
• 96 S.E. 747
• 1918 Va. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>1. Injunction—Demurrer—Trespass on Land—Gutting Timber.—A . bill to enjoin defendants from cutting and removing timber, which shows a prima facie title in the complainant, the destruction of timber ■ of special value and reasonably necessary for farm uses, and alleges the insolvency of the defendants, is not demurrable.</p> <p>2. Equity—Jurisdiction—Title and Boundaries of Land—Trespass.— The general rule is that in the absence of some peculiar equity arising out of the conduct, situation or relation of the parties, courts of equity are without jurisdiction to settle disputes as to title and boundaries of land. But where the act done or threatened to be done would be destructive of the substance of the estate, or if repeated acts of wrong are done or threatened to be done, or the injury is or would be irreparable, whenever, indeed the remedy at law is or would be inadequate, a court of equity will put forth its restraining hand and enjoin the perpetration of the wrong and prevent the injury.</p> <p>8. Adverse Possession—Hostile and Exclusive Possession.—The occupancy which is necessary to support a claim of title by adverse possession must be both hostile and exclusive.</p> <p>4. Equity—Jurisdiction—Title and Boundaries of Land.—In a suit to enjoin a trespass on land in cutting and removing timber, where both parties claim title and possession and both are exercising acts of ownership, and one fails to establish even a prima facie ease, in the interest of peace, law and order an , equity court should take jurisdiction; and in the instant case the trial court properly determined the question raised against . the defendant’s contention, which rests upon a claim of title, which is entirely unsustained, if not negatived, by the evidence introduced to support it.</p> <p>5. Appeal and Error—Judgment on Appeal—Judgment Without Pre- . judice—Res Judicata.—In the instant case, in view of the fact that the record suggested the possibility that! the defendants were overconf