Case ID: nc_6/html/0337-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ruffin', Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Long, v. Beard and Merril.
    , From Rowan. ,
    IN EQUITY.
    When a party has relief at'law and files his bill charging that he cannot procure proof to proceed at law, and praying a discorcry ; a demurrer to such bill admits the fact of inability to make proof, and the bill must be sustained on the ground that there is no adequate relief elsewhere.
    This cause came before the court on an appeal of the Defendants from the judgment and decree from the court beiow, overruling a demurrer to the bill and granting an injunction.
    The. bill as first filed, stated, that the complainant had for many years been proprietor of two ferries on the river Yad-kin, established by the county court of Rowan, and by means thereof made gains and profits, but that the Defendants had opened a road to another point on the river, near the ferries of Complainant; had set up direction boards at the forks of the roads, and informed the public that they, the Defendants, kept a ferry over which travel lersmight pass toll free, and that they did transport and carry over the r ver, many travellers &c. to the injury of Complainant : that Defendants had petitioned Rowan county court.for a ferry, and the petition was refused, and this refusal was confirmed by the superior court of Rowan and the Supreme Court of the State, and that Complainant was now prosecuting a suit at law against Defendants to recover damages. The bill prayed an injunction.
    Afterwards the Complainant filed an amended bill, setting forth the orders of the county court of Rowan, establishing his ferries, and charging that Defendants had transported travellers &c. for pay, and prayed a discovery as to the amount of their profits which he had no means of proving, and an account- Defendants demurred to the bill, and on the argument below of the demurrer, it was overruled and the Defendants ordered to answer, and the injunction was continued until the answer.
   Ruffin', Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Since this cause was decided in this court (January 1817) the Complainant has amended his bill by charging that the Defendants transport many persons and much property at their ferry for pay ; as to the particulars or amount of which he is unable to procure proof. He has also appended to his bill the orders of the county court o? Rowan, by which his ferries were appointed and settled many years ago. The bill, then prays a discovery, an account since the commencement of the suit at law, mentioned in his original bill and an injunction. To this amended bill the Defendants appeared and put in a demurrer, whereupon, the cburt upon motion awarded the injunction till further order of the court, and upon argument of the demurrer, overruled it, and ordered the Defendants to answer. From those orders and decrees títere is an appeal to this Court. The' case certainly, stands upon different grounds, in many respects, from what it formerly did. The Complainant has now appended his title and thereby shown that he has the exclusive right to a ferry, which the Defendants have violated in direct opposition to the provisions of the acts of Assembly, 1764, ch. 3, s. 4, and 1787, ch. 16, s. 1. The Defendants have appealed and demurred; by which they admit all the allegations of fact made in the bill, to be true: it is nevertheless, contended, that this Court ought not to interfere because Complainant has relief at law, and may make himself whole for the injury sustained in damages. A' plain answer to that objection is, that it is expressly charged in the bill, and admitted by the demurrer, that the Complainant is unable to procure proof, so as to proceed at law', and therefore this Court must entertain this bill upon the common ground, that there is no adequate relief to be obtained else where. Tliis consideration alone is sufficient to warrant the injunctions without adverting to the propriety of protecting the owner ol a clear, legal, exclusive right in the enjoyment of it, against such vio-Jations of it as may be repeated every hour in the day, and continued for years to come, and without calling to the Complainant’s aid, the ordinary rule which governs a Court of Equity, of assuming jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits. We arc therefore unanimously of opinion, that the injunction issue as ordered below, and. that the decree be affirmed in ioto.