The decree must be modified in accordance with the views above expressed.

Inasmuch as the defendant refused to execute a deed for other reasons than the above, which we regard as unfounded and frivolous, she will not be allowed costs. CHAMPLIN, C. J., CAHILL and LONG, JJ., concurred. MORSE, J., did not sit.

THE DEER LAKE COMPANY (A CORPORATION) V. THE
MICHIGAN LAND & IRON COMPANY (LIMITED).

Bill to quiet title-Remedy at law.

In this case it is held that complainant has an adequate remedy at law, and that equity has no jurisdiction over the controversy, and that it would be improper to express any opinion upon the other questions presented.

Appeal from Marquette. (Steere, J.) Argued October 15, 1890. Decided October 31, 1890.

Bill to remove a cloud from complainant's title to certain real estate caused by a reservation in a deed, etc. Defendant appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

E. E. Osborn, for complainant.

Ball & Hanscom (B. J. Stevens, of counsel), for defend

ant.

CHAMPLIN, C. J. The bill of complaint was filed in this case to remove a cloud from complainant's title to certain real estate.

The complainant states that both parties claim under a common grantor, namely, the Marquette & Ontonagon Railroad Company, which conveyed the land by warranty deed to those under whom it claims title, such deed containing the following reservation and exception:

"Saving and reserving to the grantor herein, its successors and assigns, forever, all mines and ores of metals that are now or may be hereafter found on the said lands, with the right to enter upon the same, and use and occupy all lands necessary for mining purposes, to lay down railroad tracks, and build roads and railroads, over and across the same, and to mine and carry away the mineral thereon."

The complainant alleges that defendant claims under the reservation of the deed. The bill also states that complainant and its grantors has been in the actual use and possession of the land, continuously and uninterruptedly, since the year 1867. The bill further states. that defendant sets up and claims title to the marble and serpentine in the said land, and refuses to commence an action at law for the same.

Three questions are raised upon the record

1. As to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery to grant the relief prayed.

2. As to whether the complainant has any title whatever to the land.

3. As to whether marble and serpentine are embraced in the reservation of the deed under which complainant claims title.

The proofs introduced show conclusively that the Michigan Marble Company, working under an option from defendant, before the filing of the bill of complaint, entered upon the land, erected a toolhouse or blacksmith shop, also erected machinery, and began the work of quarrying marble and serpentine, and had removed some of the marble; that its possession was open and notorious; that complainant knew of such possession; that the marble

company was in possession at the time the bill was filed and afterwards. These facts being established by complainant's witnesses, and undisputed, there appears to be no reason why the Deer Lake Company should not have proceeded at law to try its title to the land. When such remedy at law exists, equity has no jurisdiction over the controversy. This has been repeatedly held by this Court. Blackwood v. Van Vleet, 11 Mich. 252; Tabor v. Cook, 15 Id. 324; Moran v. Palmer, 13 Id. 368. As this must dispose of the present suit, it would be improper to express any opinion upon the other questions presented. The decree must be reversed, and bill dismissed, with costs of both courts.

CAHILL, LONG, and GRANT, JJ., concurred. J., did not sit.

MORSE,

ALLAN CALDWELL, TREASURER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
OLIVER, V. DAVID WARD AND HENRY
C. WARD.

Taxes-Removal of timber-Waste-Injunction.

1. Act No. 223, Laws of 1889, as introduced, was entitled "A bill authorizing and empowering the township treasurers of the county of Kalkaska, in the State of Michigan, to force the collection of taxes in certain cases," while the title to a substitute reported after the first fifty days of the session was "A bill to authorize the issuance of injunctions to restrain waste upon certain lands when the taxes upon the same shall be due and unpaid." And it is held that the titles relate to the same subject-matter, and that, in the absence of the original bill, it will be presumed that its provisions were germane to the object expressed in its title; that the sole object in restraining waste is "to force the collection of the taxes;" and that the right to

enlarge or limit the territory within which such acts shall be operative under bills which, as introduced, include a part or all of the State, has never been questioned, and that this can be done as well after the fifty-day limit as before.

2. Act No. 223, Laws of 1889, authorizing the issuance of injunctions at the suit of township treasurers' to restrain waste upon lands on which taxes are due and remain unpaid, is construed as follows:

a-The purpose of the statute is to prevent the removal of timber without the payment of the taxes assessed on the lands, and thus to secure to the State the revenue which is justly due from the owners if the tax is legal.

b-The statute does not require that the bill shall allege and the complainant prove that the land would be worthless without the timber, or would not be worth the amount of the tax.

c-The statute applies only to wild lands, and makes the cutting of timber on lands chiefly valuable for their timber waste, and the clear intent of the Legislature was to force the payment of the taxes before the land is stripped of its chief value. d-The township treasurer is made the agent of the State during his term of office to commence suit whenever the occasion arises, which cannot be done while the tax roll is in his hands, nor until the expiration of the time specified by law for payment of the taxes.

Appeal from Kalkaska. (Aldrich, J.) Argued October 21, 1890. Decided October 31, 1890.

Bill to restrain waste upon lands upon which taxes are unpaid, under Act No. 223, Laws of 1889. Complainant appeals from a decree dismissing bill. Decree reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Chauncey C. Jencks, for complainant.

H. H. Wheeler, H. T. Cook, W. D. Totten, and C. M. Phelps, for defendants.

GRANT, J. Act No. 223, Laws of 1889, provides that: "When any person, company, or corporation shall neglect or refuse to pay any tax assessed on the lands of

such person, company, or corporation within the time specified by law, the township treasurer shall be entitled to an injunction to restrain waste on any of such lands upon which the taxes shall remain unpaid, when it shall appear that such lands are chiefly valuable for the timber being, standing, or growing thereon."

The act further provides that the circuit judge or circuit court commissioner may upon application grant the restraining order.

Complainant filed the bill in this cause under this law. The bill contains the following allegations:

1. That complainant is the treasurer of the township of Oliver, in Kalkaska county, duly elected and qualified; that he received the tax roll of the township, and took all the steps required by law to secure the collection and payment of the taxes.

2. That there were assessed upon said tax roll taxes upon certain lands of the defendant David Ward, which said lands are particularly described in said bill as they are upon said tax roll described,

3. That the said David Ward is not a resident of the said county of Kalkaska, and that he has no place of business in the said township of Oliver.

4. That the said David Ward has neglected and refused to pay the taxes so as aforesaid assessed to him in said township of Oliver, and appearing on said tax roll.

5. That the said David Ward has no personal property in the county of Kalkaska from which the amount of said taxes could be collected.

6. That the said lands upon which said taxes are assessed are chiefly valuable for the timber standing, being, and growing thereon.

7. That the said David Ward threatens to cut and remove the said timber, and was at the time of the filing of said bill engaged in so cutting and removing the same, and in committing other waste on the said lands, to the great and irreparable injury thereof.

8. That one Henry C. Ward threatens to cut and remove timber from said lands, and at the time of the filing of said bill of complaint was then engaged with numerous men and teams in so cutting and removing said timber, and in committing other waste on said lands, to the great and irreparable injury thereof.