King Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. State

(Concurring).—If the complainants were the owners of the land and the timber thereon, they might not be able to maintain such a bill. See Carney v. Hadley, 32 Fla. 344, 14 So. 4; Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 244, 34 So. 896. But as the complainants are mere lien holders, they have no adequate remedy at law. I am inclined to the view that there is equity in the bill. See in advancing the citations above given, 40 Eq. 521, et seq., & Reynolds v. Lawrence, 147 Ala. 216, 44 So. 576, and Lancaster v. Fitzgerald (Neb.), 104 N. W. 875; Palmer v. Young, 108 Ill. App., 252.