California Supreme Court, 1855

Waldron v. Marsh

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1855 · Heydenfeldt

5 Cal. 119

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Eames v. Philpot (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
Caifornia Navigation Co. v. Union Transportation Co. (Cal. 1898)
Mead v. Stirling (Conn. 1892)
McCormick v. Riddle (Mont. 1891)
Schoonover v. Bright (W. Va. 1884)
Crisman v. Heiderer (Colo. 1881)
West v. Smith (Cal. 1877)
Thorn v. Sweeney (Nev. 1877)
Burns v. Sanderson (Fla. 1869)
Whitmore v. Shiverick (Nev. 1867)
Real Del Monte Consolidated Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Pond Gold & Silver Mining Co. (Cal. 1863)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

*120In 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.