A Michigan case, decided December 3, 1929, presents an interesting problem concerning the status of equity jurisdiction when the relief at law is adjudged adequate. Plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining lots, and disagreed as to the location of the true boundary line between them. Plaintiff was in possession of the disputed strip. Defendant started an ejectment suit, whereupon plaintiff brought a bill in equity to enjoin defendant's suit at law and to have title decreed to be in himself. Defendant answered denying that there was any equity in the bill, and moved to dismiss. Later counsel agreed that the entire dispute might be settled in the equity action, defendant praying for affirmative relief; and the court decreed for plaintiff. On defendant's appeal the supreme court, in a four to four decision, affirmed the decree for plaintiff. The dissenting judges were of the opinion that the law-relief was adequate. Hence, they reasoned, equity had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case, and could obtain none merely by agreement of the parties. The prevailing opinion advanced two arguments for affirmance: 1. The trial court in chancery was correct in taking cognizance of the case because relief at law was not adequate. 2. Even if it did not have jurisdiction originally, equity should at this stage of the proceedings, in view of defendant's acquiescence, dispose of the controversy on its merits. Defendant should not now be heard to object, his conduct conferred jurisdiction.