Middleton v. Franklin

California Supreme Court

Middleton v. Franklin

3 Cal. 238

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 238 (Middleton v. Franklin) 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

Middleton v. Franklin, 3 Cal. 238 (Cal. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

[241]*241It is well settled that to entitle a party to an injunction in a case of. nuisance, the injury to be sustained must be such as cannot be adequately compensated by damages, or it must be irremediable, or lead to irremediable mischief.

Such is not the case presented by the allegations of the complainant’s bill. It does not show a sufficient probability of mischief to require the restraining power of the court, or at least until the question of nuisance or not is determined by a jury, and even then the remedy at common law is ample.

Let the injunction be dissolved, with costs.

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

[241]*241It is well settled that to entitle a party to an injunction in a case of. nuisance, the injury to be sustained must be such as cannot be adequately compensated by damages, or it must be irremediable, or lead to irremediable mischief.

Such is not the case presented by the allegations of the complainant’s bill. It does not show a sufficient probability of mischief to require the restraining power of the court, or at least until the question of nuisance or not is determined by a jury, and even then the remedy at common law is ample.

Let the injunction be dissolved, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-franklin-cal-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack