Messimer's Appeal

Where a bill and answer in an equity suit simply present the ordinary case of property claimed by one party in possession of another party, it is a mere ejectment bill, and there is nothing to give a court of equity jurisdiction.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county: Of October and November Term 1876, No. 234. In Equity. Bill in equity filed by W. E. Messimer and D. C. Backus, partners, as Messimer & Backus, against P. A. Templeton, J. Y. Foster and William Templeton.’ The following opinion of Bredin, P. J., sufficiently states the cáse: “ The plaintiffs’ hill sets forth nothing that-brings his case within the equity jurisdiction of the court. “ His bill alleges: That Roland Island and A. H. Williams were owners of the undivided one-fourth of a certain lease for oil purposes, and of the engine and other fixtures necessary to a pumping-.well on said lease. That plaintiffs by virtue of a sheriff’s sale became the owners of said interest, but that defendants who are in possession of said lease and well refuse to recognise plaintiffs’ right or account to them for their share of the profits of said well, &c. “ Wherefore they pray: “ That defendants be restrained by injunction from selling any of said property. And ordered to account to them for oil produced since their purchase at sheriff’s sale. And also pray for a receiver to take charge of said well, and for costs. “ This bill could have been safely demurred to for -want of jurisdiction. “ The defendants in their answer admit that plaintiffs became the owners of the undivided eighth belonging to Island, but claim that Williams’s eighth had' before sheriff’s sale been purchased by one of defendants, and belonged to said William Templeton, and they aver their readiness to account for the eighth of the proceeds of the well, and pray that plaintiffs’ bill be dismissed, and for their costs. “ The answer does not aid the bill or supply any of its deficiencies. The case presented on bill and answer is simply the ordinary case of property claimed by one party, plaintiff, in the possession of another party, defendant. The parties stand in no relation to each other that would give us jurisdiction, and there is no complication of accounts or other ground of equitable relief. The bill must therefore be dismissed. “And now, to wit: July 20th 1876, after hearing and argument on exceptions to the report of the master, the. court dismiss plaintiffs’ bill for want of jurisdiction, and direct the "costs, except the costs of defendants’ witnesses, be paid by the plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs took this writ, and alleged that the court erred: 1. In.not decreeing Williams’s sale and Templeton’s purchase fraudulent and void as to the plaintiffs. 2. In not decreeing that the plaintiffs took title to the whole undivided one-fourth owned by Island and Williams in said well, &c., by their purchase at sheriff’s sale. 3. In not decreeing that P. A. Templeton and J. Y. Foster account to the plaintiffs. 4. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ bill.