McLaughlin v. Del Re
JOHN McLAUGHLIN v. HENRY DEL RE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (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 — McKinstry
McKinstry, J.
The action is neither to recover specific property, nor for money claimed as due upon contract, or as damages for breach of contract; nor “for injuries” simply. The issues of fact ought, therefore, to have been tried by the court, unless the court saw fit to order any or all of them to be submitted to a jury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 592.)
The action is in equity, the main purpose of it being to obtain a final decree restraining the continuance or repetition of the trespasses alleged, which are of a character, as claimed, to produce irreparable injury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526.) The facts alleged appeal to a court of equity, for preventative relief, on the grounds that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief, and that restraint is necessary to prevent multiplicity of suits. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3422.)
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded with direction to the court below (on the testimony already taken and such further testimony as may be taken before the court) to find the facts and enter appropriate judgment thereon.
McKee, J., and Ross, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co. Civ. 1669 · 1937-04-02
- People v. Clark Crim. No. 2289. · 1920-09-14
- Farrell v. City of Ontario Civ. No. 2783. · 1919-01-03
- Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co. Sac. No. 2077. · 1915-03-05
- Churchill v. Louie Sac. No. 868. · 1902-02-25
- Richardson v. City of Eureka S. F. No. 75 · 1895-12-16
- Churchill v. Baumann No. 18164 · 1894-10-04
- Fish v. Benson No. 9451 · 1886-12-18