Zeigler v. Beasley

When a bill was filed to restrain the transfer of certain promissory notes, alleged to have been given for the purchase of a tract of land, the main inducement for the purchase thereof being the timber standing on the land at the time of the sale, ■which the vendor had previously sold to other parties without the knowledge of the vendee, and the notes given for the land being due at different times: Held, That a Court of equity had jurisdiction, under the allegations in the complainant’s bill, to restrain, by injunction, the transfer of the notes by tlie vendor, which were not due at the time of the filing of the bill, until the final hearing of the cause, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and to have the whole matter in controversy between the parties Settled by the decree of the Court.

Equity. Injunction. Before Judge Sessions. Appling county. September, 1871. Beasley’s bill against Zeigler et al., made this case: In April, 1870, he bought from them certain lands containing say, twenty-two hundred and sixty acres, with all its appurtenances, without reservation or exception, for $2,500 00. He paid $625 00 cash, afterward, and gave his three notes to them for $625 00 each, dated the 22d of October, 1870, and due at six, twelve and eighteen months thereafter, took their deed and gave them a mortgage on the land to secure the said notes. The land was well timbered, the timber was worth $1,718 00, and the land worth but little. Previous to said sale, on the 2d of February, 1869, and without Beasley’s knowledge, defendants had conveyed to Hall & Miller the timber on seventeen hundred and fifty-nine acres of said land. They have sued Beasley on the first note which is due. They still hold the others and the mortgage. They refuse to turn over to him the proceeds of the sale of the timber, or to make any deduction on said notes, but insist that he shall pay them. He prayed that their suit be enjoined, that they be enjoined from transferring the other notes and mortgage, and that an equitable settlement be decreed. The injunction was granted. Defendant demurred to this bill, upon the grounds that it contained no equity, plaintiff had adequate remedy at law, and the injunction was improvidently granted. The Chancellor overruled the demurrer, and that is assigned as error.