Middleton v. Franklin
Synopsis
To entitle a party to an injunction in a case of nuisance, the injury to be restrained must be such as cannot be adequately compensated by damages ; or it must be irremediable or lead to irremediable mischief.
The erection of a steam engine and machinery, and a grist-mill, in the cellar under an auction store, held not to be such an injury as to require the restraining power of the court; at least,'not until the question of nuisance or not, should be determined by a jury.
Even then the remedy at common law is ample.
[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.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)