Thompson
Thompson v. Emmett Irr. Dist.
Opinion
lead Opinion
Morrow, J.
(after stating the facts as above). [1-3] For the present purposes the allegations of the bill must be táken as true. They state a case for the removal of a cloud upon the title to personal property. It has been held that such a case is within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. 6 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 729; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59 ; Voss v. Murray, 50 Ohio St. 19 , 32 N. E. 1112 ; Rosenbaum v. Foss, 4 S. D. 184, 56 N. W. 114 ; Stebbins v. Perry County, 167 Ill. 567 , 47 N. E. 1048 ; Earle v. Maxwell, 86 S. C. 1, 67 S. E. 962 , 138 Am. St. Rep. 1012 ; Magnuson v. Clithero, 101 Wis. 551 , 77 N. W. 882 ; New York & New Haven Ry. Co. v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 592 .
This jurisdiction is recognized as existing in a federal court of equity by section 8 of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stats. 472), incorporated into section 57 of the Judicial Code. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Min. Co., 117 U. S. 1 , 20 Sup. Ct. 559, 44 L. Ed. 647 ; Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 234 U. S. 369, 371 , 34 Sup. Ct. 810, 58 L. Ed. 1356 .
The refusal of the defendants to pay the interest coupons attached to the bonds of the district is based upon the claim that about…