Grey v. Ohio & Pennsylvania R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Equity. — Bill for an injunction against respondents to prevent their using their railroad across the common , in Allegheny city.
1Opinion of the Court
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court delivered
by Lewis, J.
— Where damages will compensate either the benefit derived or the loss suffered from a nuisance, equity will not interfere. An action for damages is a matter of light; but an injunction is of grace. 7 Barr, 366. Where the thing sought to be prohibited is a nuisance per se, and the mischief may be irreparable, the court will, in general, interfere, without awaiting the result of an action at law; but where it is not a nuisance in itself, but may, according to circumstances, prove so, the court *413will not interfere…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Richards's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Kuhnen v. ParkerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.