Hicks v. Compton
Before: Cope
Synopsis
The granting and continuing of injunctions in cases of alleged trespasses on land claimed by plaintiff, where the injury is likely to be irreparable, are to some extent matters of discretion, and this discretion should always be exercised in favor of the party most liable to be injured.
In this case, it was held that the temporary injunction granted on filing the complaint should not have been dissolved.before the hearing; that on the facts stated in the complaint an action for damages would be fruitless; that although the complaint does not aver absolute insolvency of defendants, still enough is averred to satisfy the Court that a judgment for damages would be worthless, and hence the injunction ought to have been continued.
An allegation in the complaint that plaintiff was in possession of the land as owner when defendant entered, is a sufficient statement of title in suit for injunction to restrain trespass'.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
This is an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction. There is nothing involved in the consideration of this order but the sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint shows that the defendants are trespassers, and engaged in. the commission of acts from which irreparable mischief is likely to result. If the facts stated be true, it is evident that an injunction is the only ade[210]quate remedy, and that an action for damages would be fruitless and" unavailing.' It is true, absolute insolvency is not charged; but sufficient appears to satisfy us that a judgment for damages would be entirely worthless. The rights of the defendants are protected by a bond, and no injury can result, to them from the continuance of the injunction. .The plaintiff has no security whatever, and the dissolution of the injunction leaves him at the mercy of the defendants. The granting and continuing of injunctions of this nature are to some extent matters of discretion, and this discretion should always be exercised in favor of the party most liable to be injure^.
The title of the plaintiff to the land trespassed upon is sufficiently stated. It is alleged that he was in possession as owner when the defendants entered, and a more direct or specific statement is not required. If the defendants can show that the title is in themselves, they may eventually defeat the action; but the case is before us upon the complaint alone.
Order appealed from reversed, and cause remanded.
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)