Case Name: WILLIAM WALDRON and ISRAEL JOINER, Appellants, v. CHARLES MARSH, and others, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1855
Citations: 5 Cal. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM WALDRON and ISRAEL JOINER, Appellants, v. CHARLES MARSH, and others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
WILLIAM WALDRON and ISRAEL JOINER, Appellants, v. CHARLES MARSH, and others, Respondents.
An injunction will not be granted in aid of an action of trespass, unless it appear that the injury will be irreparable, and cannot be compensated in damages.
It is not sufficient that the affidavit should allege that the injury will be irreparable, ii must be shown to the Court how and why it would be so, otherwise the extraordinary remedy of injunction will not be allowed, especially where no action has ever determined the plaintiff's right.
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.
The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
Francis J. Dunn for Appellants.
Searles & Tweed for Respondents.
No briefs on file.

Opinion:
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
An injunction ought not to be granted in aid of an action of trespass, unless it appear that the injury will be irreparable, and cannot be compensated in damages.
In this ease, how the cutting of a ditch through the plaintiff's land would be such an injury I cannot imagine. It is not sufficient that the affidavit alleges that the injury would be irreparable—it must be shown to the Court how and why it would be so, otherwise the extraordinary remedy of injunction will not be allowed, especially where no action has ever determined the plaintiff's rights.
The injunction in this case ought not to have been granted, and the order dissolving it is affirmed.