Defendant was not entitled to an injunction. Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106; Jones v. MacKenzie, 122 Fed. 390 (C.C.A. 8th). The court properly excluded evidence under defendant's counterclaim.
Sec. 89-3901 R.S. Plaintiff cannot obtain possession by injunction in order to maintain an action to quiet title. Alaska Co. v. Brennen, 40 Wyo. 106. Plaintiff cannot recover on the weakness of his adversary's title. Davis v. Baptist Convention, 45 Wyo. 148. A deed to a person by an assumed name is valid. 18 C.J. 176, 430. Bank v. Plank (Wis.) 124 N.W. 1000. Bank v. Co. (Wash.
Osborn asserts that injunctive relief should not be used to resolve disputes over land. In support of this assertion, he cites Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 275 P. 115 (1929). Osborn is correct insofar as he goes, but he ignores the language in Alaska Development Co. which holds that such injunctive relief is proper when matters of title have been settled and when no adequate remedy at law exists.
Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, Wyo., 675 P.2d 1271, 1279 (1984). See also In Re Shreve, Wyo., 432 P.2d 271 at 273 (1967); Arnold v. Jennings, 75 Wyo. 463, 296 P.2d 989 (1956); Macy v. Billings, 74 Wyo. 404, 289 P.2d 422 (1955); Miracle v. Barker, 59 Wyo. 92, 136 P.2d 678 (1943); Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 275 P. 115 (1929). On appeal it is presumed, in cases tried by a court without a jury, that the court in reaching its decision disregarded improperly admitted evidence unless the record affirmatively shows that the trial court's decision was influenced by improperly admitted evidence.
" Although authorized by statute, § 1-28-101 et seq., W.S. 1977, an action for injunction is a form of equitable relief which is not granted as a matter of right, but the issuance of which is addressed to the court's equitable discretion. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, Wyo., 678 P.2d 855 (1984); Lee v. Brown, Wyo., 357 P.2d 1106 (1960); Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 275 P. 115 (1929). This court has previously noted the extraordinary character of the remedy of injunction, and has stated that a court must proceed with caution and deliberation before exercising the remedy.
It is not necessary that the writ of injunction itself should deny possession to one of the contending parties and give it to another. If the writ, no matter how worded, has that effect and upon the trial such effect is shown, then the writ should not have issued. Casper Wyoming Theatres Co., et al. v. Rex Inv. Co., 37 Wyo. 357; Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106. Only damages which follow naturally and proximately from the actions themselves are recoverable. Damages created without necessity, where there is ample law to determine the question without the damages being created, cannot be recovered.
As stated before, the case was tried to the court without a jury, and the rule is that in such case the erroneous admission of testimony is not ordinarily ground for a reversal, if there is competent evidence aside from that to sustain the judgment. Williams v. Yokum, 37 Wyo. 432, 263 P. 607 and cases cited; Alaska Development Company v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 119, 275 P. 115; Yount v. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 526, 533, 101 P. 942. That appears to be the general rule. 5 C.J.S. 997. In 26 R.C.L. 1085, the rule is stated thus: "It is the general rule that error will not lie for the admission of irrelevant and incompetent evidence in a case tried before the court without a jury, at least where it does not appear that the court relied on the incompetent evidence in making its decree."
45 C.J. 665 and cases cited in notes 77 and 78; 20 R.C.L. Section 119, Page 147, and cases cited in notes 10 and 11. Other questions regarding the admissibility of evidence are argued, but as the trial was to the court, the principles announced in Williams v. Yocum, 37 Wyo. 432, 445, 263 P. 607, and Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 119, 275 P. 115, are applicable. We accordingly affirm the judgment under review.
) 29 P.2d 641; 20 R.C.L. 823. Questions as to the admission or exclusion of evidence are not argued in appellant's brief, and are therefore waived. Williams v. Yocum, (Wyo.) 263 P. 607; Development Company v. Brannan, (Wyo.) 275 P. 115; Wilde v. Amoretti, 33 P.2d 399. It is respectfully submitted that no error was committed by the trial court and each of the judgments should be affirmed. RINER, Justice.
Where a case is tried to the court without a jury, and there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court's findings and judgment, the judgment will not be reversed because of the admission of incompetent evidence. Alaska Devel. Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106; Williams, et al. v. Yocum, et al., 37 Wyo. 432; Yount v. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 526; Freeman v. Peterson, (Colo.) 100 P. 600; Arizona etc. Co. v. D. R.G.R.R. Co., 117 P. 730; Chlopeck v. Chlopeck, (Wash.