Waldron v. Marsh (1855) · DecisionDepot

Waldron v. Marsh

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An injunction in aid of a trespass action is improper unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the injury is irreparable and cannot be compensated by damages. Mere allegations of irreparable harm are insufficient; the plaintiff must provide specific facts explaining why the injury is irreparable.

Issues

Whether an injunction should be granted in an action of trespass without a showing of irreparable injury.
Whether an affidavit's mere allegation of irreparable injury is sufficient to support an injunction.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

“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”

Synopsis

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

It is not sufficient that the affidavit should allege that the injury will be irreparable, ii 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 right.

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.

Waldron v. Marsh

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief