LEE ILVBIMPBON. 13
Hill was purchased by Thomas G. Clemson, who had in the mean time
been substituted as trustee in lieu of Noble, and a conveyance thereof
was made to him as such trustee under the last will and testament of
Mrs. Floride Calhoun. Complainant alleges that the purchase money r
was paid by a receipt for Mrs. Clemson’s share in the bond. Defendant
avers that this share was supplemented by moneys of Mr. Clemson to the
extent of some $6,000. Mrs. Clemson died in 1875, some years after
this conveyance, leaving, it is said, a last will and testament. Com plain- ·
ant charges that she did not execute the power of appointment by reason
whereof the property devolves on her. Thomas G. Clemson, so being in
possession as trustee of his wife, remained in possession of Fort Hill after
her death, continuously until his own death, in 1888. In his answer
the defendant avers that Clemson left a last will and testament, with a
codicil, wherein he was named as executor, and whereby the Fort Hill
property was devised to him- upon certain. trusts. In the exhibit is his
letter to the general assembly, and copy of thisdocument, whereinit ap-
pears that he was the devisee in fee of this Fort Hill plantation, and
that the trust was to execute- a conveyance thereof to the state-of South
Carolina, uponthe acceptance of the gift thereof on certainconditions
by the said- state. On the 4th December, 1888, the-idefendantsent in
to the general assembly of South Carolina, then in session, his said let-
ter, accompanied by a copy of the said will, and in itasked the gaccept-
ance of this property thus given, on behalf of-the state. This bill was
filed on 26th November, 1888, and subpoenawas served on defendant ’
on 28th. November, 1888. The motion is for apreliminary injunction,
based on this letter of the defendant and the action of the general assem-
bly thereupon. One house has passed the bill accepting the gift, and
the bill is now on the calendar. of the otherhouse, awaiting early consid-
eration. The general assembly proposes to adjourn at a not distant day.
2 As we have seen, the defendant has answered. But in his answer he
makes defenses properly made by demurrer,_ and craves the same benefit
thereof as if he had formally demurred. VVe must therefore consider
them with the other grounds of defense inthe answer, and not pass on
the bill alone. The demurrer is to the jurisdiction,—¢that thecomplain- A
ant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy atlaw. While it is true
that in deciding upon motions for preliminary injunctions the courts must
provide for the preservation of property or rights in stem quo without V
expressing, and, indeed, withouthaving the means of forming,,anopin-
ion as to such rights, (1 High,_I,nj,. §,5; Railroad Co. v. Junction Co.,
22 Eng. Ch. 602,) yet, when the jurisdiction ofthe court is_ challenged,
that question must be met and decided, The position taken‘by;thé de-
fendant is this: Complainant alleges that she is theowner in fee of
this plantation—Fort,Hill—under. the will of_Mrs. Calhoun.: %The—_de-
fendant claims the fee under the will of Clemson. It is simply a ques-
tion of title, cognizable by at court of law; * Insuoli as action afjudg-
ment can be had ,for`the‘ rents and profits. ’ There is no occasionandnn
room for the peculiar jurisdiction of equity.' iThe_will pr Mrs. Calhoun
i¤·p¤·>$S¤d with ¤ .¤¤¤st_t1i¤` f¤¢2<1’._aefterii¢rrdé invested iri, Fiat `H:i!14?§Z’L0f