West

The legal rights of the parties as to the ownership of the crop and possession of the northeast one-quarter were in dispute, and undetermined at law; an injunction, therefore, would not lie. (Middleton v. Franklin, 3 Cal. 238 ; Waldron & Joiner v. Marsh et. al. 5 Cal. 119 ; Oates v. Teague, Oct. Term, 1856; Leach v. Z%, 37 Cal. 643 ; N. O. & S. O. Co. v. j&fcZ, 37 Cal. 283 ; 7 Johns’ Ch. Eep. p. 315; 4 Johns’ Ch. Eep. p. 21; Moore v. Orí?, 15 Cal. 204 .)

A. A. Hart, for the Eespondent.

The plaintiff could not have maintained ejectment against defendant, because the acts of the latter did not work an ouster or disseizin. (Tyler on Ejectment, 79, 82, 83, 85; Code Civil Procedure, 323.)

The plaintiff, being in the possession of the land, was the owner of the growing crop. (Page v. Fowler, 39 Cal. 412 ; Pennebecker v. McDougal, 46 Cal. 661 .)

In this case the defendant is not shown by the record to have ever been in possession of the land. The plaintiff had his volunteer crop in, and ivas in possession of the land, and the defendant went there and sowed a few sacks of grain over plaintiff’s volunteer. The grain had not been cut or harvested at the time the action was begun. In…