Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Waldron v. Marsh 5 Cal. 119

← Cases

Waldron v. Marsh

5 Cal. 119 Court Cal. English

Delivered by Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Contents

Majority

p. 119
WILLIAM WALDRON and ISRAEL JOINER, Appellants, v. CHARLES MARSH, and others, Respondents.

Headnote

An injunction will not be granted in aid of an action of trespass, unless it appear that the injury will be irreparable, and cannot be compensated in damages.
It is not sufficient that the affidavit should allege that the injury will be irreparable, ii 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 right.
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.
The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
Francis J. Dunn for Appellants.
Searles & Tweed for Respondents.
No briefs on file.

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.

p. 120
In 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.