Daubenspeck v. Grear

California Supreme Court

Daubenspeck v. Grear

18 Cal. 443, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 227

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 Cal. 443 (Daubenspeck v. Grear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daubenspeck v. Grear, 18 Cal. 443, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 227 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

There is no doubt that the plaintiffs are entited to the equitable relief prayed for. The verdict is conclusive of the rights of. the parties, and the only remedy from which the plaintiffs can derive adequate relief is by injunction. They are threatened with injuries which must, if committed, result in the destruction of their property, and it is the duty of the Courts in such cases to interpose and prevent the perpetration of the injurious acts. We can hardly conceive of a more appropriate case than the present for the administration of this species of justice; the mischief against which the plaintiffs seek protection is irreparable in its nature, and destructive of interests for which no equivalent can be returned. The fact that the defendants are willing to pay for the property is immaterial, for there are no means of determining whether the value of the property in money would compensate the plaintiffs for its destruction. It may possess a value to them which no other person would place upon it; and there is neither justice nor equity in refusing to protect them in the enjoyment of it, merely because they may possibly recover what others may deem an equivalent in money. The nature of the property, which consists of fruit trees, ornamental shrubbery, etc., gives them a peculiar claim to this protection.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for a judgment in accordance with this opinion.

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

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

There is no doubt that the plaintiffs are entited to the equitable relief prayed for. The verdict is conclusive of the rights of. the parties, and the only remedy from which the plaintiffs can derive adequate relief is by injunction. They are threatened with injuries which must, if committed, result in the destruction of their property, and it is the duty of the Courts in such cases to interpose and prevent the perpetration of the injurious acts. We can hardly conceive of a more appropriate case than the present for the administration of this species of justice; the mischief against which the plaintiffs seek protection is irreparable in its nature, and destructive of interests for which no equivalent can be returned. The fact that the defendants are willing to pay for the property is immaterial, for there are no means of determining whether the value of the property in money would compensate the plaintiffs for its destruction. It may possess a value to them which no other person would place upon it; and there is neither justice nor equity in refusing to protect them in the enjoyment of it, merely because they may possibly recover what others may deem an equivalent in money. The nature of the property, which consists of fruit trees, ornamental shrubbery, etc., gives them a peculiar claim to this protection.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for a judgment in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Cal. 443, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daubenspeck-v-grear-cal-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack