
    Hunter v. Carroll.
    A court of equity will not order the removal of buildings which, by an innocent mistake as to the line, have been placed a little upon the plaintiff’s land, when it appears that the damage caused to the defendant by such an order will be greatly disproportionate to the injury of which the plaintiff complains.
    Equity does not aid oppression, hut leaves one seeking its interference for such a purpose to his remedies at law.
    Bill in Equity, praying that the line between land of tbe plaintiff and defendant be established, and that the defendant be ordered to remove two bouses wbicb are situated partly upon the. plaintiff’s land. Facts found by a referee.
    Tbe defendant bas two bouses which extend over tbe line, — tbe northerly one at its north-west corner seven and forty-five hundredths feet; tbe southerly one at its south-west corner four and ninety-five hundredths feet. Tbe defendant purchased tbe land for tbe purpose of putting tbe south building upon it, and acted innocently and with no intent to trespass upon the plaintiff in putting it there, supposing it was on her own land. Tbe plaintiff knew tbe building was being put on the lot by tbe defendant, and made no objection, not knowing where tbe line was. A strip of land west of tbe defendant’s buildings, ten feet wide, wbicb would include that part of tbe plaintiff’s land on which tbe defendant’s buildings now stand, is worth ten dollars. Tbe location of tbe line bas been heretofore established in a suit at law between tbe parties.
    Tbe court entered a decree, in substance, that if tbe plaintiff files with tbe clerk, before June 1, 1888, a deed of quitclaim or release to tbe defendant of a strip of land ten feet in width across tbe easterly end of her lot and adjoining tbe defendant’s land, judgment is to be entered on tbe report for tbe plaintiff for fifteen dollars damages and taxable costs. If the plaintiff refuses to make such conveyance, tbe bill is to be dismissed with costs for tbe defendant. To this order and decree tbe plaintiff excepted.
    
      E. J. Temple, for the plaintiff.
    
      Leonard Wellington, for the defendant.
   Blodgett, J.

The plaintiff can take nothing by her exception. The inconsequential injury reported by the referee may apparently be fully compensated, and the land itself recovered in proceedings at law; but if not, the manifest object of this proceeding being to compel the defendant to pay an exorbitant price for tbe narrow strip of land upon which, through mutual mistake, her two houses are partly situate, and which is comparatively valueless except for purposes of litigation, or subject her to great inconvenience and expense in removing the buildings, equity will not aid in this attempted act of oppression, and will not take jurisdiction to give the plaintiff redress other than that afforded her by the alternative decree made at the trial term. See Wason v. Sanborn, 45 N. H. 169; Clark v. Society, 46 N. H. 272, 275, 276 ; Bassett v. Company, 47 N. H. 426, 439, 441, 443.

Exception overruled.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  