
    LONG aginst BEARD, MERRILL & OTHERS.
    ■Wlvere ade-¡uate relief ¡armotbeob-a 'quiwwin^ iustain a bill aran injunc-ion :^as isvner of a public ferry loses part a iear bis, without right, but cannot procure proof to enforce bis claim at law. An ex-Jusive legal right ought to be prof ectecl by equity against violations qf hourly repeti-ioti.and interminable duration. A Court of Equity will assume jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of suits.
    was a gin ⅛ Equity,, praving an injunction and , u discovery. The bill stated that the Complainant was owner of two public ferries on the Yadkin, two mile? ¿jgtant from each other, one in his own possession, the ' - • , iatKer In that of a tenant; the first on a public road lead» ing from Salisbury, on the S. W. side of the river, to public house kept by Thompson, on the Nv E. side—the other on a public road leading from Salisbury to Lexing» ton: That the Defendants opened a way from the Toad leading from Salisbury to Lexington, leaving it on the S. W. side of the river, and crossing the river about mile and a half below the first ferry, and half a mile above the last, and thence to Thompson’s ; and another way leading from the place where their said way crossed the river, into the road leading from the lower ferry to Xexington; that at the several forks they erected posts giving notice that there was a free ferry kept at the place inhere their way crosses the river, and that they keep boats and transport passengers across the river without any authority so to do : That the Complainant is now prosecuting a suit at law to recover damages for the injury; but that he has no means of proving in a Court of Law the number of persons ferried over by the Defendants, nor the sums received. The bill then sets forth the several orders of the County Court establishing the public ferries of the Complainant, and ascertaining the rates of ferriage ; and refers to the proceedings heretofore had in this Court relative to the fight of the ferry. The Defendants demurred to the bill, and, upon argument in the Superior Court, the demurrer was overruled, and an injunction ordered.—from which decree the Defendants ap¿ ^pealed to this Court.
    
      Brówne and Norwood, for the Complainant.
    
      Badger, for the Defendants'.
    
      
       2 Cer. L. R. 69
    
   Ruffin, J.

delivered the opinion of the Couft s

Since this cause was decided in this Court (Jan. lélf) the Complainant has amended his bill, by charging that the Defendants transport many persons and much property at their ferry for pay; as to the particulars dr amount of which he is unable to procure proof. He has also appended to his bill, the orders of the County Court of Rowan, by which his ferries were appointed and settled many years ago. The bill then prays a discovery, an account since the commencement of his suit at law, mentioned in his original bilí, and an injunction.—To this amended bill, the Defendants appeared and put in a demurrer. Whereupon, the Court, on motion, awarded the injunction ill further order oí the Court ; and, upon argument of the demurrer, overruled it, and ordered the Pefendants to answer.—From those orders and decrees, there is an appeal to this Court,

The case certainly stands upon different grounds, in many respects, from what it formerly did. The Complainant has now amended hds title, and thereby shewn that he has the exclusive right to a ferry, which the Defendants have violated, in direct opposition to the provisions of the acts of Assembly of 1764, c. .3, s. 4, and 1787, c. 16, s. 1. The Defendants have appeared and demurred, by which they admit all the allegations of fact made in the bill to be true. It is nevertheless contended, that this Court ought not to interfere, because the Complainant has relief at law, and may make himself whole for the injury sustained in damages. A plain answer to that objection is, that it is exprsssly charged in the bill, and admitted by the demurrer, that the Complainant is unable to procure proof, so as to proceed at law; and therefore this Court must entertain this bill, upon the common ground that there is no adequate relief to be obtained elsewhere. This consideration alone is sufficient to warrant the injunction, without adverting to the propriety of protecting the owner of a clear, legal, exclusive right, in the enjoyment of it, against such violations of it as may be repeated every hour in the day, and continued lor years to come ; and without calling to the Complainant’s aid the ordinary rule which governs a Court of Equity, of assuming jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

We are, therefore, unanimously of opinion, that the injunction issue, as ordered below, and that thé decree tie ailirmed in toto.  