Middleton v. Franklin

Decided July 15, 1853

California Supreme Court · decided 1853-07-15

This was an application, on the part of the plaintiff, to restrain defendant from.the erection of an alleged nuisance. The facts were, that the plaintiff occupied the upper part of a building as an auction store; the defendant occupied the cellar below, and both held as tenants under the City Market Company.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2017

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *241It is well settled that to entitle a party to an injunction in a case of. nuisance, the injury to be sustained must be such as cannot be adequately compensated by damages, or it must be irremediable, or lead to irremediable mischief.

¶2Such is not the case presented by the allegations of the complainant’s bill. It does not show a sufficient probability of mischief to require the restraining power of the court, or at least until the question of nuisance or not is determined by a jury, and even then the remedy at common law is ample.

¶3Let the injunction be dissolved, with costs.