Opinion ID: 2618616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: as to enjoining the commission of crimes

Text: In their points on appeal appellants state: The court erred in failing to give recognition to the fact that at all of the times herein there was available to the plaintiffs a speedy and adequate remedy at law, and, such being the case, injunction is not a proper remedy. Under their specification of errors appellants assert that: The court lacked jurisdiction in the matter of the actions taken:       2. Because injunction is an improper remedy where there exists a speedy and adequate remedy at law   . Under their summary of argument and argument appellants contend as follows: That the acts complained were criminal offenses under both municipal and state law, and, therefore the plaintiff had available at all times a speedy and adequate remedy at law.       `Equitable jurisdiction to enjoin and restrain assaults, batterys, insults and molestation of the person is generally refused.' In support of this general proposition appellants cite the following authorities: Kwass v. Kersey, 139 W. Va. 497, 81 S.E. 2d 237, 47 A.L.R.2d 695 (1954); 28 Am.Jur. Injunctions §§ 131, 157 (1959); Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 30 Cal.2d 110, 180 P.2d 321, 171 A.L.R. 913 (1947); City of New Orleans v. Liberty Shop, 157 La. 26, 101 So. 798, 799, 40 A.L.R. 1136 (1924). Appellee in its brief answers appellants' contentions in regards to the issue of enjoining the commission of crimes, arguing in part: Furthermore, even if some of the defendants' acts were of a criminal nature, that would not prevent an injunction, for to prosecute each of these violations would entail a multiplicity of lawsuits. In support of the above appellee cites Alper v. Las Vegas Motel Ass'n, 74 Nev. 135, 325 P.2d 767, 769-70 (1958); State v. Robertson, 63 N.M. 74, 313 P.2d 342, 345 (1957).