Middleton v. Franklin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an application, on the part of the plaintiff, to restrain defendant from.the erection of an alleged nuisance. The facts were, that the plaintiff occupied the upper part of a building as an auction store; the defendant occupied the cellar below, and both held as tenants under the City Market Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an application, on the part of the plaintiff, to restrain defendant from.the erection of an alleged nuisance. The facts were, that the plaintiff occupied the upper part of a building as an auction store; the defendant occupied the cellar below, and both held as tenants under the City Market Company. The complaint proceeds to set forth, that “ the defendant is now in the act of erecting in the said cellar, a steam-engine, furnace, and boiler, to drive a mill and machinery for grinding flour, which he is also erecting in said…
1Opinion of the Court
*241It is well settled that to entitle a party to an injunction in a case of. nuisance, the injury to be sustained must be such as cannot be adequately compensated by damages, or it must be irremediable, or lead to irremediable mischief.
Such is not the case presented by the allegations of the complainant’s bill. It does not show a sufficient probability of mischief to require the restraining power of the court, or at least until the question of nuisance or not is determined by a jury, and even then the remedy at common law is ample.
Let the injunction be dissolved, with costs.
2Cited by3 opinions
- People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Bigelow v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- West v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877