Middleton v. Franklin

3 Cal. 238
California Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[241] It 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

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

3 Cal. 238 (Middleton v. Franklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co.
California Court of Appeal, 2017
People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co.
227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2017)
Bigelow v. City of Los Angeles
24 P. 778 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
West v. Smith
52 Cal. 322 (California Supreme Court, 1877)