Herr v. Bierbower
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The bill, in this case, was filed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from building upon, or otherwise dispossessing the complainants of a certain lot, situated in the city of Baltimore. The allegations of the bill and answer are fully stated in the opinion of the Chancellor, delivered upon the hearing of the motion to dissolve the injunction which had been granted upon the bill.]
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
The question which arises in this case, is one which has repeatedly engaged the attention of this Court, and has been deliberately and carefully considered upon several occasions.
Though difficulties and doubts may and do arise in the application of the principle by which such cases must be governed, *457there can now, since the cases of Amelung vs. Seecamp, 9 G. & J., 468, and Hamilton vs. Ely, 4 Gill, 34, were decided, be no controversy about the principle itself. It being now conclusively settled “that an injunction will not be granted to restrain a mere trespass, where the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jerome v. RossNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Amelung v. SeekampCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1838
- Hamilton v. ElyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
3Cited by12 opinions
- Moore v. McAllisterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Oberheim v. ReesideCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Dundalk Holding Co. v. EasterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Long v. RaganCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
- Stinchcomb v. Realty Mortgage Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.