The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1874-02-26
JUDGE STEEL S DECISION.


ton to dissolve temporary injunc
ton. The grounds of the motion
are numerous, but We notice only one,
as the view which we take of that
renders it unnecessary to examine
the others.
Does the petition show cause of
action in favor of johnson and Dunn
jointly? and does the affidavit, which
is nothing but the petition, with its
verifeation, authorize the allowance
of temporary injunction in favor of
both jointly? Like Pharaoh's dream,
these two questions are one, and the
Interpretation thereof is one.
The plaintiffs may join, (see34 code,
Swan, PIP. SO, 9O,) still the petition
must show cause of action in favor
of each plaintiff, and if it do not, it
is bad on general demurrer. 13th
Ohio State, 72, 76, 77)
Does it do this as toEohuson? As
to him the petition alleges:
1. That he is the owner, in fee, of
the premises.
2. That he had an easement on
High street, upon which the premis-
es are situated.
8. That the defendants erected and
caused to be erected on High street,
public highway, in front of said
premises, a certain board and can
vas structure, or shanty, not more
than seven feet from the edge of the
pavement, so placed as to obstruct
the hitching posts in front thereof;
that said shanty is a nuisance, OBJ
structs the highway, and depreciates
the value of his property. The in
jury complained of by him. is not
permanent, nor such as goes to the
destruction of property. Q2th Ohio,
386; Adams Equity; Story's Equity.)
As to him, that shanty is a nuis-
ance only because it obstructs the
highway. He is not affected by the
singing and praying. He had no.
easement except reversionary one.
The easement in the street is appur-
tenant to, and passed with, the re-
atty, and is now in Dunn.
How Johnson is injured is not
shown. What he complains of is a
statutory nuisance, and the stat
ute gives him an adequate remedy.
The depreciation in the value OF his
property by reason of such nuisance
can be estimated in damages.
The petition then makes no case in
favor of Johnson, and making none
for him, the action cannot go on IN
the name of the plaintiffs jointly.
But it is said that, if the parties
show a good cause of action in favor
of Dunn, the court should permit
him to amend under the 18th Sec
ton of the code.
1t may be that under this sweeping
provision the court can allow him to
amend his petition, affidavit, and or
der of injunction, but before it will
do so, it must be satisfied that such
course is in the frrtherance of JUS
tice.
This does not mean in furtherance
of the convenience or interests of the
plaintiffs alone, nor of the defendants
alone, but of right. ..
The party asking an injunction
must make q strong showing, not
only that he is probably entitled tc
: the prayer ofhis petition, but that be
is so IN fact.
The defendants should have 6
! right to contest his petition as upor
original application; this is, in fact, 6
new hearing.
The injunction is therefore dis
solved, and the plaintiffs to pay the
costs.
Judge Steel concluded by saying
: that he could not grant temporar.
Injunction without notice to the 9th
er parties in the case, and a thorough
argument, but that, at any time, h
, would grant a restraining order upol
, application, with sufficient caus
: shown, until hearing for tempora
ry Injunction could be had.
t Judge Gray-It has been though
+ by us proper that I should say few
J words in addition to what has bee