When equitable jurisdiction is invoked and the administration of equitable principles attaches in a proper proceeding, the court may and should administer complete relief on all questions raised by the evidence, regardless of whether or not they were specially raised by the pleadings. Lewis v. Schaffer, 163 Okla. 94, 20 P.2d 1048; Chastain v. Smith, 77 Okla. 188, 187 P. 802; Shull, State Bank Com'r, v. Yeargain, 149 Okla. 224, 300 P. 307. There was adequate evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.

As to the first question, there is no contention but that a cause of action is stated in the petition, if the land had been in McIntosh county, or if the action was in Creek county, where the land is situated. Many cases are cited by plaintiff in error holding that the district courts of this state, in the exercise of their equity jurisdiction, have power to vacate and annul orders or judgments of other courts, including probate courts, and to cancel deeds made by guardians to lands of minors, and to annul the order of the county court confirming same. Among others cited are: Chastain v. Smith, 77 Okla. 188, 187 P. 802; Elrod v. Adair, 54 Okla. 207, 153 P. 660; and Balridge v. Smith, 76 Okla. 36, 184 P. 153. The power of the district court is not questioned where the land is in the county where the action is brought.

"Where a proceeding is of purely equitable cognizance, the court, having obtained jurisdiction of the controversy, will administer complete relief in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits." Chastain v. Smith, 77 Okla. 188, 187 P. 802; Tidal Oil Co. v. Roelfs, 77 Okla. 183, 187 P. 468; Success Realty Co. v. Trowbridge, 50 Okla. 402, 150 P. 898; Ball v. White, 50 Okla. 429, 150 P. 901; Cook v. Warner, 41 Okla. 781, 140 P. 424. "A court of equity, having all the parties before it, will adjudicate upon all the rights connected with the subject-matter."

This position is not tenable. Where a court of equity has taken jurisdiction of a controversy, all matters and things with reference thereto between the parties, either in law or equity, will be heard and determined. De Roberts v. Town of Cross, 23 Okla. 888, 101 P. 1114; Cook v. Warner, 41 Okla. 781, 140 P. 424; Ball v. White, 50 Okla. 429, 150 P. 901; Success Realty Co. v. Trowbridge, 50 Okla. 402, 150 P. 898; Tidal Oil Company v. Roelfs, 77 Okla. 183, 187 P. 486; Chastain v. Smith, 77 Okla. 188, 187 P. 802; Murray v. Speed, 54 Okla. 31, 153 P. 181; Mathews v. Sniggs, 75 Okla. 108, 182 P. 703; Probst v. Bearman, 76 Okla. 71, 183 P. 886. The court, having secured jurisdiction by the injunction proceedings, could adjudicate any matter with reference thereto between the parties, either legal or equitable.

From an examination of the entire record in this case, we are convinced that the trial court, after having obtained jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, sitting as a court of equity, had authority and it became his duty to retain such jurisdiction and to administer such relief as the respective parties were shown to be entitled to at the hands of the court. Tidal Oil Co. v. Roelfs, 77 Okla. 183, 187 P. 486; Chastain v. Smith, 77 Okla. 188, 187 P. 802. The record discloses that the contract price of the improvement in question amounted to the sum of $38,758, and it is admitted by the plaintiffs that the price of the grading, curbing, and draining for which the abutting property is properly chargeable under the facts and the law amounted, to the sum of $12,000.