From Rockingham Circuit Court. In Equity. This case was referred, and it appeared from the report of the referee, that at the time of the alleged trespass the plaintiff was in possession of the locus in quo claiming title; it being a field, a part of which had been redeemed from the sea, and bounded on the east by the Atlantic ocean.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-08-10
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1908
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1I am not quite sure that I understand the question raised in this case. I infer, however, that the referee's report furnished the only evidence before the court, and that the court held that on that evidence there was no equity, that is, no case for the exercise of the equity power of the court of chancery.
¶2The allegations in the bill, as I infer, were, that the removal of the sand would cause the plaintiff's land to be overflowed by the water of the ocean, and that irreparable injury would be done.
¶3These allegations were negatived by the report; and I think the court below rightly held that there was no equity, and that the bill must be dismissed.
