Waldron v. Marsh
WILLIAM WALDRON and ISRAEL JOINER v. CHARLES MARSH, and others
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
An injunction ought not to be granted in aid of an action of trespass, unless it appear that the injury will be irreparable, and cannot be compensated in damages.
*120In this ease, how the cutting of a ditch through the plaintiff’s land would be such an injury I cannot imagine. It is not sufficient that the affidavit alleges that the injury would be irreparable—it must be shown to the Court how and why it would be so, otherwise the extraordinary remedy of injunction will not be allowed, especially where no action has ever determined the plaintiff's rights.
The injunction in this case ought not to have been granted, and the order dissolving it is affirmed.
Cited by
- Eames v. Philpot Docket No. 2852. · 1925-04-02
- Caifornia Navigation Co. v. Union Transportation Co. Sac. No. 437 · 1898-12-13
- West v. Smith No. 5454 · 1877-07-01
- Real Del Monte Consolidated Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Pond Gold & Silver Mining Co. · 1863-07-01