Carpenter v. Grisham
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from De Kalb Circuit Court. I; Trespass will not lie against a road overseer who is attempting to open a road under the order of the County Court'. (Butler vs. Barr, 18 Ho., 357.) Of course, if trespass would not lie against defendant for the acts complained of by plaintiff, an injunction would not lie to restrain him from doing the acts or threatening to do them. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from De Kalb Circuit Court. I; Trespass will not lie against a road overseer who is attempting to open a road under the order of the County Court'. (Butler vs. Barr, 18 Ho., 357.) Of course, if trespass would not lie against defendant for the acts complained of by plaintiff, an injunction would not lie to restrain him from doing the acts or threatening to do them. II. The sole object of this suit is an injunction, which the law does not allow, there being no suit in trespass, nor any prayer in the bill, for an account or compensation. (Welton vs. Martin, 7 Ho., 307.) III. A party…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
This was a proceeding by injunction to restrain the defendant, who was a road overseer in De Kalb county, from occupying a portion of the plaintiff’s land, lying in defendant’s district, and laving out a public road thereon, and from tearing down his fences, destroying his fruit and ornamental' trees, and filling up his well for that purpose.
The road commissioner had laid out the road along the half section line, which was the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s land, and on February 1th, 1868, made report thereof, together with a plat showing the location of the road. Whereupon the County Court,…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Whitely v. Platte CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Anderson v. PembertonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Knopf v. Chicago Real Estate BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Poirier v. FetterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- McPike v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.