Tomlinson v. Rubio

Bill for an injunction to restrain defendants from taking possession of certain real estate—a warehouse and wharf. Complaint avers plaintiffs’ title to the property and their possession; that defendants have conspired together, and are threatening to take by force the property from plaintiffs, and are making preparations, and using violent means to drive plaintiffs and their workmen from the premises; that plaintiffs are in possession of teams, carriages, etc., for transporting goods from said warehouse and wharf to Los Angeles, as a business connected with said premises, and that, unless defendants are restrained from executing their threats, plaintiffs will be ruined in their business, and their property be destroyed: Held, that these allegations are insufficient to authorize an injunction—there being no averment of insolvency of defendants, and the complaint not showing that there is no adequate remedy at law.

In such case, forcible entry and detainer would be a speedy mode of regaining the possession, if taken by defendants, and for other damages the usual proceedings at law would suffice. That the premises are used in connection with the transportation business, which would be interrupted by the threatened trespass, is not alone a ground for equitable interference.