Cockey v. Carroll

4 Md. Ch. 344
CourtHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland
DecidedMarch 15, 1849
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Md. Ch. 344 (Cockey v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of Chancery of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cockey v. Carroll, 4 Md. Ch. 344 (Md. Ct. App. 1849).

Opinion

The Chancellor:

The allegations of this bill, which stated a case of irreparable mischief, are so far denied by the answer that the injunction must be dissolved unless the proof shows that the trespasses complained of are such that adequate compensation at law could not be given, for it is now settled definitively that the Court of Chancery in this state will not interfere by injunction where the injury is not irreparable and destructive to the plaintiff’s estate, but is susceptible of perfect pecuniary compensation, and for which the party may obtain adequate satisfaction in the ordinary course of law. Amelung et al, vs. Seekamp, 9 G. & J., 468. The proof in this case does not show such irreparable mischief, and therefore, the injunction must be dissolved.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Purdy v. Manhattan Elevated Railway Co.
13 N.Y.S. 295 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)
Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co.
38 Mich. 46 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Md. Ch. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cockey-v-carroll-mdch-1849.