
    Topp et als. vs. Williams et als.
    
    The Court of Chancery has no jurisdiction to try a mere question of boundary. Hale vs. Darter 5, Humph. 79.
    Bill filed in the Chancery Court at Memphis, to enjoin the issuance of grants in certain entries, made by defendant Williams. The Chancellor dismissed complainant’s bill, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
    
      Gibbs, for complainants.
    This case comes up from the decision of the Chancellor allowing the demurrer and dismissing the bill. >
    
    The bill alledges that complainants as Trustees hold a tract of land of 400 acres, part of grant to Ramsey of 5000 acres, meandering the Mississippi river, and that defendants have recently made an entry on a part of said tract, by fraudulent imposition upon the surveyor and entry taker, which is void, and prays an injunction to prevent the issuance of a grant upon said void entry, &c.
    The question is, will a court of equity entertain jurisdiction to declare an entry made without the authority of law void? fori take, it if the court would declare a grant void, a bill quia timet would be sustained to pre'vent the issuance of the grant.
    The party whose right may be effected, need not wait until a suit is brought, although he might make his defence at law •when sued, but may file his bill immediately. See 1 John Ch. Reports 517, Hamilton vs. Cummings; 7 Yes. 3 Bromly vs. Holland; 13 Yes. 581, Jackson vs. Mitchel; 3 P, Williams 791, Duke of Sutiimersetvs. Cockson. I maintain that a Court of Equity has the power of ordering void instruments to be delivered up or decree them void and perpetually enjoin the use of them in the following cases:
    1. Void judgments.
    2. Void deeds, promissory notes, policies of insurance, See.
    
    3. Forged deeds.
    4. Void entries and grants, &c. See American Digest, 487, 1 Dev. 225; 2 Yerger, 524, Johnston and Cooper vs. Crosswhite; 4 Yerger, 383, Maise vs. Gower.
    
    A Court of Equity is the proper tribunal for annulling a grant. 2 Tenn. Reports, Sevier and Anderson’s, lessee, vs. Hill, page 27. See 155, Hill vs. Polk’s lessee.
    Objection. That this is a mere question of boundary, and therefore the court cannot litigate it in equity. Answer. There is no foundation for the argument. The bill charges that the complainant’s grant meanders the river; that there is no vacant land between it and the water to enter, and that the entry is on the grant, and therefore void.
    If the court does not interfere, a great injury may be the consequence.
    This is trust property to be sold out as town lots.
    1. We cannot force defendant to get a grant.
    2. If he had a grant we cannot force him to sue, See.
    
    3. If we defeated him in one ejectment he could bring others, and thus prevent the use of the property.
    It was remarked, “It is every day’s practice to order instruments to be delivered up, of which a bad use might be attempted to be made at law, although they could not even then entitle the holder to recover. 2 Anst. 454, referred to 1 John, Ch. R. 522; 1 Maddox p. 26.
    
      Blume, for defendants.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill by the complainants, trustees for the “Memphis Auxiliary Company,” who derive their title from a grant to John Ramsey and John Overton for 5000 acres of land, calling to lie on the Mississippi river and bounded on the west by the river, to enjoin the defendant Williams from obtaining grants upon two entries made by him, calling to be west of said Ramsey and Overton grant. One of these entries calls to begin at a stake on the west boundary line of Ramsey and Over-ton’s 5,000 acre grant, No. 19,060, the north east corner of a fifty acre survey in the name of said Williams, and south west corner of John Overton’s division of said grant, thence with the line of said grant north 41 degrees, east 17 chains, thence North 36 degrees, East 4 chains and 34 links, thence north 49 degrees, east 6 chains and 57 links to a stake on west boundary line, thence west 14 chains to the Mississippi river, a stake at the water, thence down said fiver with the meanders of the water 27 chains to a stake at the water due west of the beginning, thence east 14 chains to the beginning. The calls of the other entries are similar to the one above recited. To this bill the defendant demurred and the chancellor allowed the demurrer and dismissed the bill.

The question now is whether this court has jurisdiction to afford the relief asked for? It is admitted by the counsel for the complainants, that if the statements of the bill only raise a question of boundary, a Court of Chancery is not the proper forum to determine it. And we think there is manifestly no other question presented by the facts set forth. The entries of Williams both call to lie west of the complainants’ grant to begin at a stake on their west boundary and to run thence with said line, &c. It is true it afterwards calls to run west 14 chains to the river, thence down the river along the edge of the water to a stake at the water, and thence east 14 chains to the beginning. But these calls do not produce any interference with the complainants, for if their land is bound by the river as he alledges in the bill, the defendant, as a necessary consequence, gets nothing, because between the western boundary of the complainants’ grant, which is his eastern boundary and the river his western boundary, there is no space. The only question, therefore, is, where is the western boundary of the complainants’ grant? That being settled, there is no dispute, and that is a question of boundary and nothing else. It is suggested that as proof, the calls of the second and the third do not expressly mention again that these lines are with the western boundary of the complainants’ grant, it may be inferred that they encroach upon it. We do not think any such inference can be drawn. The first call is to begin on the west bounda-ryline of the complainants’ grant at a stake in that line, thence with the line of said grant north 47 degrees 17 chains, thence north 36 degrees, east 4 chains 34 links, thence north 49 degrees, east 6 chains 57 links to a stake on the west boundary line,.thence west, &c. We think the inference is that the entire Eastern line of the entry is to correspond with the western line of complainants’ grants. The bill does not state that the courses called for in the second and third calls would encroach upon the grant, and in the absence of such allegation the inference is irresistible that they do not. The case therefore presents the single question as to the locality of the complainants’ western line. There is no error in the decree, and we order that it be affirmed.  