Court Opinion

ID: 9826788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:38:40.902323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:15.081286
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR.
Appellants have filed a petition for a rehearing on two grounds:
(1) It is insisted that the court should not permit a cross-bill in ejectment to be filed in a possessory suit.
(2) That in the event the cross-bill was proper, then the case should be remanded that complainants may develop their case, as they were taken by surprise.
After an examination of the record and the authorities, we think the petition should be denied.
On the first proposition, we think the reason given in our opinion are sufficient. Where one files a bill to protect possession and to enjoin trespass, and to recover damages for the value of timber cut, the title to the timber cut and the possession of the land are involved. If the valid, legal title of the property is in the defendants, it should be a good defense, and there can be no sense in requiring an independent suit, when they can g*et quicker and more effective relief in the same suit with less expense. Why resort to a circuitous route wheu a direct course is as equally effective?
On the second proposition, we think the parties should have developed their case in the court below. They give no reason other than that they thought the court would not permit the cross-bill to be filed and hence they are surprised at the court’s action. The Chancellor permitted the cross-bill to be filed and then continued the case for defense and proof; hence Ave cannot see how the complain*166ants were surprised. They thought he was in error and took a chance and lost. No one is to blame other than themselves. They had all the time necessary to have developed their case, and we have no assurance that the facts, if further developed, would be other than as now shown in the record; hence the petition is denied.
Paw, P. J., and DeYíitt, J., concur.