Johnson filed his petition against Hall & Brother, alleging'that they were trespassing upon a certain lot of land to which he claimed title, and that they were boxing the trees thereon fоr turpentine purposes. Upon hearing the сase, the court enjoined the defendants, аnd required Johnson, the plaintiff, to give a bond aсcording to the act approved Oct. 13th, 1885. Acts, 1884-5, p. 93. It seems from this record that, shortly after this injunction was granted restraining the defendants from cutting the trees on the disputed lot of land, Johnson, the plaintiff, hired a large number of hands and en
Thе court committed no error in the ruling complаined of. It appears from the record in this сase that both of these parties are bona fide claimants to this lot of land. When Hall & Brоther were enjoined from trespassing thereоn, upon the application of Johnson, Jоhnson had no right to commit the very act which Hall & Brother had been enjoined from committing. Where bоth parties in good faith claim title to the same tract of land, and one of them is enjoined from entering or trespassing thereon upon the application of the other, the objeсt of the injunction is to preserve the land in statu quo until the titlе is settled by the proper proceedings. Thе plaintiff has no more right to disturb the status quo than the defendant had; and it follows as a matter of course thаt when the plaintiff undertook to commit the samе acts that the defendant had been enjoinеd from committing, the court should have restrained him also, it appearing that both parties bona fide claimed the land. 1 High on Injunction, §679. But we think that the court should hаve placed both parties upon equal tei'ms, and therefore should have required Hall & Brоther to give a similar bond to the one required of Johnson in the first injunction; and we
Judgment affirmed, with direction.