Case Name: The Wolf River Lumber Company, Respondent, vs. The Pelican Boom Company and another, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1892-11-15
Citations: 83 Wis. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Wolf River Lumber Company, Respondent, vs. The Pelican Boom Company and another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 426–428

Head Matter:
The Wolf River Lumber Company, Respondent, vs. The Pelican Boom Company and another, Appellants.
October 28
November 15, 1892.
Equity: Injunction: Remedy at law.
Where two persons claim logs in the possession of a boom company, a mandatory injunction will not be granted to compel the company to deliver the logs to one claimant, where the other claimant and the company are solvent, there being a clear and adequate remedy at law.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County.
Appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunctional order, and continuing the same in force.
The defendant Pelican Boom Ccrmpany is a corporation maintaining under authority of law a system of booms and piers across the Wisconsin river near Rhinelander, for the purpose of handling and assorting logs which are floated down said river. During the winter of 1891 and 1892 one Nathan cut timber from a tract of land situated on a tributary of the Wisconsin above the booming works, placed a mark upon the logs, banked them, and sold 'them to plaintiff. Nathan claimed to own the tract of land from which the logs were cut by virtue of certain tax deeds. The defendant Brown also claimed to own said land by virtue of original entry thereof, arid by virtue also of a tax deed subsequent to the tax deeds held by Nathan. Brown placed his own mark upon the logs. The logs were floated down to the boom company’s works, where Brown ordered the company to deliver the logs to him, and the plaintiff ordered the logs turned down the river, in order that they might be manufactured into lumber at plaintiff’s saw mill at Merrill. The boom company declined to decide the question of title, and, being indemnified by Brown, detained the logs, whereupon the plaintiff commenced this action in equity, alleging that it bad no adequate remedy at law, and procured an injunctional order restraining defendants from stopping thp logs, and commanding the boom company to pass said logs down the river. The defendant Brown, by his answer, claimed to own the logs, alleging facts tending to show that Nathan’s tax deeds were void, and claimed that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. The boom company, by answer, disclaimed any interest in the logs, and denied the allégation that plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law. All parties to the action are solvent. The defendants, after pleading, moved to dissolve the injunctional order, which motion was denied, and the injunction continued. From this order the appeal is taken.
For the appellants there were briefs by Alban & Barnes, and oral argument by John Barnes.
For the respondent there was a brief by Henry C. Hetzel, attorney, and Neal Brown, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Brown.

Opinion:
Winslow, J.
We deem it unnecessary to decide the question of the title to the land from which the logs were cut, although that question was elaborately argued. The plaintiff claims to own a lot of logs, which, at the commencement of the action, were in possession of the defendant boom company. The defendant Brown also claims to own these same logs. The defendant boom company refused to delivér the logs to the plaintiff. The action is brought to compel delivery of the logs to plaintiff by the aid of a mandatory injunction in equity. It seems plain that plaintiff has a clear and adequate remedy by action of replevin or trover, if it can substantiate its title to the. logs. This objection was affirmatively and specifically raised by the answer of the defendant Brown, and substantially by the answer of the boom company. Both defendants are shown to be solvent. No injury is shown which money damages will not make good. Upon familiar principles, a court of chancery will not use the extraordinary remedy of injunction in such a case.
By the Court.— Order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.