gno.law

Tomlinson v. Rubio

California Supreme Court · · 1860-07-01 · Published · 16 Cal. 202 · 1860 Cal. LEXIS 208

TOMLINSON v. RUBIO

Area
civil
Panel
Joseph G. Baldwin (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 — Baldwin

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.

This bill was filed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of certain real estate—being a warehouse and premises. The bill does not aver the insolvency of the defendants, nor show *207that there is no adequate remedy at law. The action of forcible entry and detainer would, upon the facts,-be a speedy mode of regaining a possession taken as the bill charges the defendants are preparing to take possession of this property; while,' for any other damages, the usual proceeding at law would be a sufficient and effectual remedy. That this estate is used by the plaintiff in connection with business which would be interrupted by this threatened trespass, is not alone a ground for equitable interposition; for this is, if not the usual, a very frequent consequence of such trespasses.

Judgment affirmed.

Cited by