Judges: ClaRK
Filed Date: 9/10/1901
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The complaint alleges ownership and possession of a tract of land; that defendant claims, without legal right, an interest in the timber standing thereon by virtue of an alleged contract, and asks the judgment of the Court that such contract be declared null and void. The defendant answers, admitting the complaint, except the allegations as to the contract, which, it asserts, is valid, and asks judgment declaring it a valid lien upon the timber interest in said land. The Court below adjudged that the defendant was not entitled to the relief it demanded, and then dismissed the action. Both parties appealed.
As the defendant did not prosecute the appeal, that part of the case is determined. Besides, it was justified by Manufacturing Co. v. Hobbs,
The defendant strenuously argued the equitable doctrines formerly applicable, but we need not discuss their application here, for this is not an equitable proceeding. It is an action given by statute. Laws 1893, Chap. 6. It was because the General Assembly thought the equitable doctrines (as laid down in Busbee v. Macey,
Error. *Page 11
EAST CAROLINA LUMBER COMPANY v. Pamlico County ( 1955 )
Christman v. . Hilliard ( 1914 )
Power Co. v. . Power Co. ( 1918 )
Newman MacHine Company v. Newman ( 1969 )
Satterwhite v. . Gallagher ( 1917 )
Bunch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co. ( 1903 )
Monds v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co. ( 1902 )
Manufacturing Co. v. Hobbs ( 1901 )