From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waldron v. Marsh

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1855
5 Cal. 119 (Cal. 1855)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.

         COUNSEL:

         Francis J. Dunn, for Appellants.

          Searles & Tweed, for Respondents.


         No briefs on file.

         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         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.          In this case, 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


Summaries of

Waldron v. Marsh

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1855
5 Cal. 119 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Waldron v. Marsh

Case Details

Full title:William Waldron&Israel Joiner, Appellants, v. Charles Marsh&others…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1855

Citations

5 Cal. 119 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

Spargur v. Heard

ere true. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 526; Lux v. Haggin , 69 Cal. 284, 285, 287; Heilbron v. Canal Co ., 75 Cal.…

Mott v. Ewing

true. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 526; Lux v. Haggin , 69 Cal. 285, 287; Heilbron v. Canal Co ., 75 Cal. 426; 7…