The daily gazette., 1883-03-15
THE WHARF MATTER.
The ChanceIIor's Lengthy Decision in the
PaschalI Case.

PaschalI Case.
Chancellor Saulsbury's decision IN the
matter Of the Injunction asked for by the
Harlan & Holingsworth Company against
Samuel d. Paschall, reviews the whole mat
ter completely and concludes as follows:
In the present case the complainant states
in his bill that the proposed wharf if con
structed Will be public nuisance and that
the complainant will suffer an injury
distinct from that of the public in general,
In consequence thereof, and prays relief In
equity The evidence In the case being con-
ficting and the injury to the public doubtful,
the complainant has failed to make out
upon determinate and satisfactory evidence
shat the wharf II made will be public
nuisance, and his right to file bill in his
own name as suffering distinct injury from
that of the public IN general in consequence
ofthe character of the proposed structure
cannot be admitted. Even had the bill in
this case been filed in the name Of the
attorney general this court would
not have felt free to grant an in
junction for the reasons already stated.
In regard to private nuisances the inter
ference Of courts of equity by way of in
junction is undoubtedly founded upon the
grounds Of restraining irreparabe mischief
or of suppressing oppressive and intermin-
able litigation CT Of preventing multiplicity
of suits
It is not every ease which will furnish a
right of action against party for u nuis-
ance which will Justify the interpositipn OF
courts of equity to redress the injury or tC
remove the annoyance. But there must be
such an injury AS from its nature is not sus
ceptible OF being adequately compensated by
damages at law, or such as from its contnu-
ance or permanent mischief must occasion
a constant recurring grievance which cannot
20 afheruisp Drpypptpl lint nv an iniunc
tion. Thus it has been said that every com
mon trespass is rot foundation for an in
junction, where it is only contingent, fugi
tive or temporary.
But If it is continued so long as to become
nuisance, in such case an injunction
ought to be granted to restrain the perso
from committing it.
So a mere diminuition of the value q
property by the nuisance without irriparabl
mischief will furnish any foundation 10
equitable relief Story, 1925.
On the other hand where the injury
irreparabe as where permanent ruin [
property may, or will ensue from the wrong
full act or erection, in every such cas-
courts Of equity will interfere by injunctio
in the furtherance of justice and the violate
rights of the party. Story, 1926.
In the case before me the injury whcl
the complainant will suffer as distinct froI
that which the public in general will suffe
according to the proof appears to be uncel
tain, contingent, speculative, or remedies
at law, and not so ruinous to property {
will justify the interference of this court b
injunction in furtherance Of justice, and IL
violated rights of complainant, real {
reasonably to be apprehended, to restrai
the defendant from erecting the propose
wharf
The injunction prayed in this case
therefore refused and the bill of complain
is dismissed, with costs on the usual term