clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 456   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

466 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
JOHN HERR AND WIFE,
vs. JULY TERM, 1861.
LEMUEL BIERBOWER.
[INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN TRESPASS.]
As injunction will not be granted to restrain .a, mere trespass, where the
injury is not Irreparable and destructive to the plaintiff's estate, but is
susceptible of perfect pecuniary compensation, to; the ordinary course
of law.
But if the trespass goes to the destruction of the inheritance, or the mis-
chief be not susceptible of perfect and adequate pecuniary compensation
at law, or if the acts done or threatened to the property be ruinous, or
irreparable, or impair its just enjoyment in future, the Courts of Equity
will, without hesitation, interfere by injunction.
Taking possession of a portion of a city building lot, and digging upon it- a
foundation, and erecting a building upon such foundation, thereby reducing
the front of the lot so as to prevent the plaintiff's building upon it himself
in the most advantageous mode, goes to the destruction, pro tanto, of the
estate, and impairs the just enjoyment of the property in future, and will
be restrained by injunction.
But the erection of a. fence of wood upon a part of such. lot, and the admis-
sion of such a trespass, does not, per se, furnish a sufficient claim to the aid
of a Court of Equity by injunction.
[The bill, in this case, was filed for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from building upon, or otherwise dispossessing
the complainants of a certain lot, situated in the city of Balti-
more. The allegations of the bill and answer are fully stated
in the opinion of the Chancellor, delivered upon the hearing
of the motion to dissolve the injunction which had been granted
Upon the bill.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
The question which, arises in this case, is one which has re-
peatedly engaged the attention of this Court, and has been
deliberately and carefully considered upon- several occasions.
Though difficulties and doubts may and do arise in the appli-
cation of the principle by which such cases must be governed,

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 456   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives