SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 115

Clagett, John W. Clagett, Thomas Clagett and Richard H. Cla-
gett. It is stated and appears, that some time in or before the year

or his lessee, or that its preservation was endangered by the disposition made
of it, an injunction to restrain such use should not be granted. Wagner v.
Cohen, 6 Gill, 97.

III. INJUNCTIONS AFFECTING STREETS. HIGHWAYS AND WAYS. See also,
Municipal Corporations, post, sec. X.

Where a bill was filed for an injunction to compel the defendant to re-
move certain obstructions placed by him upon a street, it was held that the
obstructions not being such as would inflict upon the rights of the plaintiff
an important and irreparable injury, which could not be fully compensated
by an action at law. the bill should be dismissed, Fort v. Groves, 29 Md.
193. But generally a party entitled to a right of way over a street or road
may be protected in the enjoyment thereof by an injunction restraining the
erection of obstructions thereon. Roman v. Strauss. 10 Md. 89. A bill
alleging that an alley over which the plaintiffs have a right of way. is the
only reasonably convenient route to their property and place of business,
owing to the fact that the neighboring streets were already rendered nearly
impassable by the railroad tracks laid upon them, and that the defendants
are about to obstruct this alley by laying a railroad track across it. by which
the plaintiff will be subjected to daily irremediable damage, is sufficient to
warrant the granting of an injunction to prevent such obstruction. Ibid.

A bill alleging a prescriptive right of way over defendant's land to a
public road and market, and that complainant has no other outlet whereby
to convey his produce to Baltimore for sale, except by a circuitous route
over the lands and by the permission of persons who might, at any time,
withhold such permission, makes out a case sufficient to warrant the grant-
ing of an injunction restraining the defendant from further obstructing
such way. Shipley v. Caples, 17 Md. 179. Injunction granted at the instance
of a party entitled, under an implied covenant, to the use of a street of a
particular width to prevent obstruction of the same. White v. Flannigan. 1
Md. 525.

If the right of way over a street of the owner of a lot fronting thereon is
so unlawfully obstructed as to subject him to a special injury not common
with, but distinct from, that suffered by the public, and for which he cannot
obtain adequate compensation at law. he is entitled to the summary inter-
ference of equity. R. R. v. Strauss, 37 Md. 237. But in this case it was held
that the complainant had lost his right to an injunction by laches and ac-
quiescence. In a case where obstructions have been erected on a strip of
ground alleged to be a public way. if the applicant for an injunction for
their abatement, claiming the use of the ground as one of the public and
negativing all mere private right in it, were obstructed or deprived of
reasonable access to his building and thereby subjected to loss and in con-
venience that would be such a special injury as to entitle him to remedy in
equity. But if such applicant and the purchaser of the ground have con-
tracted with each other in respect to its use. the remedy would be on the
agreement. Gore v. Brubaker, 55 Md. 87.

An Act authorizing a railway company to construct a tramway on certain

streets in the City of Baltimore is valid, and the use of a street for that pur-

pose is not such an invasion of the rights of abutting owners as to entitle

them to enjoin the proceeding. Hodges v. R. W. Co., 58 Md. 604. Injunc-

tion to restrain a company from constructing a horse railroad on a street in