Tomlinson v. Rubio
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the First District. Bill for an injunction. The complaint avers, in substance: 1. That, in 1856, Augustus W. Timms erected, at the port of San Pedro, a warehouse and wharf, leading therefrom out into the Pacific ocean—both of which were so erected on the beach of the ocean below high water mark.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the First District. Bill for an injunction. The complaint avers, in substance: 1. That, in 1856, Augustus W. Timms erected, at the port of San Pedro, a warehouse and wharf, leading therefrom out into the Pacific ocean—both of which were so erected on the beach of the ocean below high water mark. That said wharf was constructed for the transportation of goods to and from vessels and said warehouse, which was built for the storage of such goods; that after said warehouse and wharf were so constructed, Timms used and occupied the same without molestation for the purposes above…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. concurring.
This bill was filed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of certain real estate—being a warehouse and premises. The bill does not aver the insolvency of the defendants, nor show *207that there is no adequate remedy at law. The action of forcible entry and detainer would, upon the facts,-be a speedy mode of regaining a possession taken as the bill charges the defendants are preparing to take possession of this property; while,' for any other damages, the usual proceeding at law would be a sufficient and effectual remedy. That this estate is used…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ketchum v. CrippenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Tevis v. EllisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Barnes v. NewtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Tevis v. EllisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864