Case ID: va_14/html/0953-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wingfield v. Crenshaw.
    September Term, 1809.
    Nuisances — When Equity Will Interpose. — A Court of Equity ought not to interpose in the case of a nuisance, except where the law would not afford an immediate nor an adequate remedy until'irrepa-rahle injury miglu be done.
    
      The defendant was the owner of a grist mill on Southanna river in Hanover County, and the plaintiff applied to the Court of that County in 1803, for leave to build a mill on the same river,-above the defendant’s; and the defendant applied for leave to raise his dam; and while their applications were depending, the defendant raised his dam two feet, to the prejudice of the plaintiff, who filed this bill, in which he stated, that the water was thrown back upon his plantation, which affected the health of his family, and covered his mill-seat fourteen inches, which was done to' prevent him from building a mill; and prayed for the abatement of the nuisance, and for an injunction to prevent the defendant, in the mean time, from the use of the water. The Court at first denied the motion; but afterwards made a rule upon the defendant, to shew cause against granting the injunction.
    
      
      The principal case is cited in Powell v. Bentley, Si W. Va. 808, 12 S. E. Rep. 1086. See monographic note on "Nuisances.”
    
   By the Chancellor.

It is agreed upon both hands, that the plaintiff has a suit at law against the defendant about this very matter; and I am very clearly of opinion, from every thing which I have seen, that these parties are before the proper tribunal: for although this Court might interfere, in the case of a nuisance where there is a flagrant violation of private right, attended with public injury, when the law would neither afford an immediate nor an adequate remedy until irreparable injury might be done, yet this is not one of those cases. For this reason, the rule must be discharged.