Gorton v. Town of Forest City

69 N.W. 478, 67 Minn. 36, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 337
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 24, 1896·No. Nos. 10,407—(101)·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

BUCK, J.

This action was commenced for the purpose of restraining the defendants from opening a public highway. Upon the verified complaint, a temporary injunction was accordingly issued. The defendants appeared, and served a verified answer, and therein alleged certain facts, which, if true, would justify the court in dissolving the injunction. Plaintiff served- a reply, the contents of which were stated upon information and belief, and his verification was to the same effect. The writ of injunction was dissolved and set aside, upon the ground that it was wrongfully obtained, and was issued without reason or sufficient grounds. The issues involved in the-action are yet untried, and, if the plaintiff has suffered damages, he is not without a remedy. But the granting, refusing, or dissolving [37] a temporary injunction pendente lite rests necessarily in judicial discretion; and, unless there has been an abuse of such discretion, this court will not interfere, especially where the prosecution of an enterprise of a public nature is involved. Myers v. Duluth T. R. Co., 53 Minn. 335, 55 N. W. 140.

Order affirmed.

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

Gorton v. Town of Forest City, 69 N.W. 478, 67 Minn. 36, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 337 (Mich. 1896).

69 N.W. 478 (Gorton v. Town of Forest City) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meagher v. Schussler
118 N.W. 664 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Haugen v. Sundseth
118 N.W. 666 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Meyer v. Town of Petersburg
104 N.W. 899 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Stillwater Water Co. v. Farmer
99 N.W. 882 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1904)
McGregor v. Case
83 N.W. 140 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)