Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/341

 PRESTON V. WALSH. 329 �of the circuit court of the United States, sitting as a court of ebancery, to enforce these obligations. �The learned solicitors for the defendant have, with great ingenuity and force, argued to the court several propositions that I will merely advert to. They claim that no injunction should issue in this case, as it would be a vain and useless order, so far as giving any relief to complainant is concerned. It does not seem so to me. Prevent- ing the further waste of the trust estate, preventing further clouds from being thrown on complainant's equitable title, and preventing defendant from further obstructing complainant in the assertion of bis rights, would seem considerable, valuable, and effective relief. �It is further said by the solicitors that complainant should be remitted to the political department of the state government for the relief his case demanda. I do so remit him, but at the same time I grant the relief (as I am bound to do) that I find he is entitled to from the court, and the court aids him to protect his property until the conscience of the political department is moved, and the said department can see its way clear in the premises. �It bas been urged, and, in faot, charged in the answer, that many innocent persons have acquired equitable titles to lands in the limita of the Mercer colony, and that to continue the injunction will oper- ate a loss and hardship. No proof is made, but, taking it to be true, there is no suggestion that any of these equitable titles are of a bigher nature or of earlier date than complainant's titles. It shows the more forcibly the necessity for the action of the political department of the state, but shows no sufficient reason for this court to deny complain- ant the relief that equity and good conscience require. �For these reasons, and many others that might be given, and well knowing that any errors that I may make, either in granting or in denying the full measure of relief, can and will be revised and cor- rected by the honorable, the supreme court of the United States, I consider it my duty to pass the accompanying decree. And it ia so ordered. ��� �