The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-26
SUPERIOR ccusT--spscal IssM
what Ia Necessary To Authorize nm hjunc-
tion-Opiniou by Jndge NlcCunn.

what In Necessary To Authorize nm Injunc-
tion-Opinion by Jnsige NlcCunn.
Genta us. Arnaud.-Judge McCunn has delivered
sne following important opinion IN this case:--
To authorize an injunction under section 40 Of
the Code the complaint must show the palntln en-
tailed 10 Injunction ultimate relief; and that
present preliminary injunction IS necessary 10 avert
intermediate INJURY. thart vs.. harvey ~ bArbolr.1
Now the complaint herein exhibits no equity. The
injury alleged Is q mere trespaSs, and nere Tres
pass Is insufficient to authorize an Injunction. lhe
prncipie OF injunctiye relief against tot = .hss
whenever damage Is caused or threatened 70 pro-
perry. admitted or legally adJudged 70 be Tue plaln-
us by act or the defendant united or legally au-
Judged to De a wrong, and such damage Is not ade-
uuaIey remedable AZ law, an injunction may issue
Against the commission or continuance VI the
wrong" thus three conditions are essenuaI 70 IN
junctive relief against lrespass-nrsf admission or
adjudication OF PLAINTIFFS right second, admission
or adjudication OF the defendants wrong, and third.
madequacy OF q remedy Al law. Neither OF these
conditions are operative IN the present case Tor Doth
the right OF tue plann aud the wrong OF tue deen-
dant are explicitly denied, and III TACT, decsiveiy
disproved; moreover, II Is plain the complainant
has ample remedy In action OF damages ~
law, and his mere denial OF The lnadequacy OF
legal remedy ayails Nothing when ne SHOWS
Court sees he mas abundant redress III action Tor
damages. II the trespass amount to an actual Gus.
ter, lt Is remediabe by electnent II fan snort OF
custer, then by trespass; aud In neither OF these
cases Will an injunction lie (Ihomas Vs. Oakley, is
Vesey, 1S4J. There must be some special equity IN
the case so as 10 bring the injunction under the
head or quoting possession, or preventing lrrepsra-
bic injury or inadequacy OF compensation IN dam
ages Livingston VS.. Livingston, johns, Ch. IL,
49. That an injunction VIII not issue wnen the In
jury Is remeoabie BY damages (see Marshall VS.. Pc
ters IL How, 2lS); and II well establishes that II
will not issue to restrain an apprehended tres
pass mayor OF New J ork VS.. Con0yer, abb. Tue
allegation IN the complaint OF the destruction aud
removal OF the PLAINTIFFS personal property raises no
equity 70 injunction since these are Injuries for
winch an obvious and adequate remedy may be mad
at law by action OF troyer, repleyln or Iesplss.
A bill OF injunction may be dismissed on mouon
without an answer Tor want OF eqplty on Its face
tCrandall VS.. Woods, Call, 449). IL beng OBVIOUS,
therefore, on the face OF the complaint that the
plaintiff is not entitled to injunctlve relief part
oil the nal Judgment IN The case there Is no author
tty 10 issue or uphold an interim injunction. On
this polat tue language OF SUBJ sec 2lg Of Code Is
explicit and peremptory. where II shall appear by
the Complaint thar the planf IS entitled 70 the re.
lief demanded, and such relief consists In final
Injunction &c The PLAINTIFFS own statement OF
her case positively dlscredits ner claim 10 injunc-
tive rellef In certain sense an mLerlocutory In
junction Is ~ the discretion OF the Court: yet the
discretion is not arbitrary capricious but regu
lated by well established and familiar rules OF prac
uce. preliminary Injunction should not be granted
unless the injury Is pressing and decay dangerous
A clear right, Tree from reasonable DOUBT, must be
sersnns o, t sa'n CGnr preliminary inter
the right Is not only denied, but positively
disproyed, and IL is almost universal practice to
dissolve the injunction where the answer fully denies
all circumstances upon which the equity Of the bill
10 founded. thonman Vs. Livingston, Johns ch.,
r. 2l In the present case not only Is the equity OF
the bill explicitly Denied but, in 1act all the rghl
and oil the equity are with the defendants. They
are IN the legal possession and enjoyment of the
building, and the plaintlr is mere trespasser
without shadow Of title. Never before did Ill
intruder seek, much less obtain the equitable inter
position OF the court 10 uphold HIM III his wronNfu
entry. The Injunction order should be dissolved.