P filed an action alleging that they were the owners of certain land located in the town of North Kingstown (D). P claimed that there is a building belonging to them on the land and that D, under the order of the town council, destroyed it. P claimed that the entire building including its foundation was razed and the lot was graded thereby throwing the estate open to the public and obliterating its boundaries. P sought an injunction against D from carrying out its purposes for the land and from further interference with P’s estate and for general relief. P’s bill was filed February 28, 1885. D filed its answer on May 27, 1885, and admitted that it did what was charged. But, D also denied that the lot in question was part of any estate of P and alleged that the land was part and parcel of a public highway and that the building had stood thereon to the sufferance of the town. In a supplemental answer filed September 26, 1886, D alleged that their purposes had been fully carried out and that P cannot maintain its current bill because their remedy is complete at law as the building had been removed and the lot graded. P then filed general replications. D then moved that the bill be dismissed because P had an adequate remedy at law and that P’s bill does not state a case for equitable relief, and even if it did state such a case the building and foundation have been removed, and the lot has been graded, and thus there is no cause of action under equity.