it has an adequate remedy at law. He may plead that fact in defence in the city court, and, if the decision be against him, he may appeal and then have a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore the Circuit Court of the United States would not grant relief by injunction even if it had the power.1

§ 31. With more special reference to the character of the injury in question, as irreparable by an action at law; where the injury is not susceptible of being adequately compensated in damages, or such as from its continuance or permanent mischief must occasion a constantly recurring grievance, which cannot be otherwise prevented, as where loss of health, loss of trade or business, destruction of the means of subsistence, or permanent ruin to property, may or will ensue from the wrongful acts; or where an easement or servitude is annexed by grant, covenant, or otherwise to a private estate; equity will interfere by injunction in furtherance of justice and the violated rights of the party, or to protect the due and quiet enjoyment of the easement against encroachments.2

§ 32. The omission of the charge of irreparable mischief would not be a defect in a bill otherwise good, because the court must be satisfied, from a statement of the grievances, that the injury would be irreparable, and it is enough if the court can discover this from the allegation of facts.3 On the other hand, mere allegation of danger of a great and irreparable injury is not enough; facts must be stated, to satisfy the court of the existence of such danger.'

§ 33. It is held, that, if the court interfere on the ground that the complainant has not an adequate remedy at law, it should do so by a direct decree to that effect, and not by injunctions issued at a preliminary stage of the proceedings."

:

§ 34. In refusing to interfere by injunction, a court of equity takes notice of other remedies within the power of the party complaining, than that of an action at law. Thus, in case of a bill by a part of the directors of an insurance company, constituted by deed, against another director, alleging misconduct, it appeared that the plaintiffs had not made use of the regulating authority given by the deed, and an injunction which had been granted was dissolved.' So, in a case relating to a water-course, it appeared that other parties, who had polluted the stream in the same way, being threatened with suits, entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to make a certain annual payment for the privilege of doing it; and the court held this to be sufficient proof that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law, and were not entitled to an injunction.2

$35. It is said to be the general, though not universal rule, that an action at common law should be brought before an application is made for an injunction.3 So it is held, that, if the title of the complainant is denied, he must show former recoveries or long possession, in the case of patents; and, in case of waste and trespass, that there are no facts to warrant the denial; or the injunction will be refused till the disputed questions of title are settled at law. But the prevailing rule would seem to be, that a complainant, who has established his right at law, stands in no better position respect to obtaining an injunction, than one whose right is not disputed.

in

$36. While it is sufficient ground for refusing an injunction that the party has an adequate remedy at law, it is also held that there is no case, in which equity has granted a

perpetual injunction to a plaintiff to protect him in the enjoyment of a naked legal right, which he and those under whom he claims have stipulated by solemn deeds not to exercise. Legal rights must be asserted by legal means, and courts of equity never lend their aid where equity and justice do not imperiously demand it.'

§ 37. Notwithstanding the general rule that the party applying for an injunction must be remediless at law, the court of equity is not exceeding its functions, in deciding a purely legal question arising in a suit before it, either with or without legal assistance, but ought to decide such a question where the controversy and material facts are plain. And an injunction may be granted where the defendant, against whom there is otherwise a good remedy at common law, is insolvent, or about to abscond.3

§ 38. As may be gathered from what has been already stated, with reference to the grounds which justify the interference of a court of equity by injunction; it is held, that, where a petition for an injunction does not show that the party applying for it is likely to be injured by the proceeding complained of, the injunction ought not to be granted; or, if granted, it ought to be dissolved, on motion. Also that past injuries are not in themselves ground for an injunction; but when there is a continuance of an injury, and a right to continue it is claimed, an injunction may, in a proper case, be issued to restrain the continuance."

§ 39. Another principle is, that, where either party may suffer by the granting or withholding an injunction, the rule in equity requires the court to balance the inconveniences likely to be incurred by the respective parties, by means of the action of the court, and to grant or withhold the injunc

468.

Bosley v. McKim, 7 Har. & J.

Shrewsbury, &c. v. Stour, &c. 21 Eng. Law and Eq. 628.

3 Ponder v. Cox, 28 Geo. 305. 4 Cameron v. White, 3 Tex. 152. Society, &c. v. Morris Canal, Saxt. 157.

tion according to a sound discretion.' Where an injunction might cause irreparable damage to the defendant, in the event of the plaintiff's not being exclusively entitled, but the damage sustained by the plaintiff, in the event of establishing his title, allows of compensation, the injunction will be refused.

$40. Equity may enjoin any act, from which irreparable injury to public property may result.3

$ 41. In cases of imminent danger of injury, a temporary injunction will be granted on filing amendments to a bill after appearance, but the injunction will be accompanied with an order to show cause why the bill should not be amended, and why the injunction should not be continued."

42. It is said that slight infringements of rights in respect of land, by a large company of persons, ought to be watched with a careful eye, and repressed with a strict hand, by a court of equity, where it can exercise jurisdiction. (See Corporations.) But an injunction will not be granted for every Wrongful or unconstitutional act of individuals or corporations. Thus, where a city ordinance directed the plaintiff's lots to be filled and the expense assessed, an injunction was

refused,

on the ground that the injury was not shown to be

irreparable,

so that an action at law would not be an ample remedy, and that the assessment, if illegal, could not be collected. So where the plaintiffs, for the purpose of preventing the defendants from laying their pipes from their gas-works city, purchased a lot of land so situated upon the highway, that it was necessary that the defendants' main pipe pass through that part which lay within the limits of

into a

should

the highway, and the defendants laid their pipe across it, and avowed their determination to maintain it there; held, as the substantial controversy was in relation to the right to use the highway irrespective of any title to the soil, and as the defendants were liable in trespass for any damage done to the land, an injunction ought not to be granted.1

§ 43. To entitle the plaintiff to an injunction, he must not be guilty of any improper delay in applying for relief." "If a party is guilty of laches or unreasonable delay in the enforcement of his rights, he thereby forfeits his claim to equitable relief-more especially where a party, being cognizant of his rights, does not take those steps to assert them which are open to him, but lies by, and suffers other parties to incur expenses and enter into engagements and contracts. of a burdensome character."3 Acquiescence, although not conferring a right on the opposite party, deprives the complainant of his right to the interference of a court of equity. Unless the applicant has acted promptly, he is held to have impliedly authorized what he now objects to. Thus where a party applies to stay operations upon a large and costly work, it should appear that he applied for an injunction as soon as he became apprised of his rights and the extent of the threatened injury. So where there has been great delay on the part of a vendor, the court will not enjoin an action against the auctioneer for the deposit. So an injunction will not be granted to prevent back-flowage, where the party has suffered it to continue for nineteen years without objection, except a verbal notice when the dam was first built, and has seen it four times destroyed by floods and rebuilt. one owning the water of a creek cannot enjoin a canal company from using it, after they have used it for more than

1 Norwich, &c. v. Norwich, &c., 25 Conn. 19.

2 Grey v. Ohio, &c. 1 Grant, 412; Field v. Beaumont, 3 Madd. 61; Burden v. Stein, 27 Ala. 104; Long v. Cross, 5 Jones Eq. 323.

So