Waldron v. Marsh

5 Cal. 119
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

An injunction ought not to be granted in aid of an action of trespass, unless it appear that the injury will be irreparable, and cannot be compensated in damages.

[120] In this ease, how the cutting of a ditch through the plaintiff’s land would be such an injury I cannot imagine. It is not sufficient that the affidavit alleges that the injury would be irreparable—it must be shown to the Court how and why it would be so, otherwise the extraordinary remedy of injunction will not be allowed, especially where no action has ever determined the plaintiff's rights.

The injunction in this case ought not to have been granted, and the order dissolving it is affirmed.

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

Waldron v. Marsh, 5 Cal. 119 (Cal. 1855).

5 Cal. 119 (Waldron v. Marsh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eames v. Philpot
236 P. 373 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Phenix v. Frampton
29 Nev. 306 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1907)
Caifornia Navigation Co. v. Union Transportation Co.
55 P. 591 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Verdin v. City of St. Louis
33 S.W. 480 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Mead v. Stirling
62 Conn. 586 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1892)
McCormick v. Riddle
10 Mont. 467 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
Schoonover v. Bright
24 W. Va. 698 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1884)
Crisman v. Heiderer
5 Colo. 589 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1881)
Thorn v. Sweeney
12 Nev. 251 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1877)
West v. Smith
52 Cal. 322 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
Burns v. Sanderson
13 Fla. 381 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)
Whitmore v. Shiverick
3 Nev. 288 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1867)