Tomlinson v. Rubio

California Supreme Court
Tomlinson v. Rubio, 16 Cal. 202 (Cal. 1860)
1860 Cal. LEXIS 208
Baldwin

Tomlinson v. Rubio

Opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

This bill was filed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of certain real estate—being a warehouse and premises. The bill does not aver the insolvency of the defendants, nor show *207that there is no adequate remedy at law. The action of forcible entry and detainer would, upon the facts,-be a speedy mode of regaining a possession taken as the bill charges the defendants are preparing to take possession of this property; while,' for any other damages, the usual proceeding at law would be a sufficient and effectual remedy. That this estate is used by the plaintiff in connection with business which would be interrupted by this threatened trespass, is not alone a ground for equitable interposition; for this is, if not the usual, a very frequent consequence of such trespasses.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
TOMLINSON v. RUBIO
Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Bill for an injunction to restrain defendants from taking possession of certain real estate—a warehouse and wharf. Complaint avers plaintiffs’ title to the property and their possession; that defendants have conspired together, and are threatening to take by force the property from plaintiffs, and are making preparations, and using violent means to drive plaintiffs and their workmen from the premises; that plaintiffs are in possession of teams, carriages, etc., for transporting goods from said warehouse and wharf to Los Angeles, as a business connected with said premises, and that, unless defendants are restrained from executing their threats, plaintiffs will be ruined in their business, and their property be destroyed: Held, that these allegations are insufficient to authorize an injunction—there being no averment of insolvency of defendants, and the complaint not showing that there is no adequate remedy at law. In such case, forcible entry and detainer would be a speedy mode of regaining the possession, if taken by defendants, and for other damages the usual proceedings at law would suffice. That the premises are used in connection with the transportation business, which would be interrupted by the threatened trespass, is not alone a ground for equitable interference.