Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: James B. Gibson and Hampton, Bull Crom, for Appellants;
Alonzo B. McMullen and Ralph A. Marsicano, for Appellee.
Filed: Apr. 27, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The decree appealed from dismissed a second amended bill of complaint brought to enjoin the city from discharging "raw or untreated sewerage" into the waters connected with the city and for incidental relief, it being alleged that such discharge peculiarly injures complainants' oyster beds in connecting waters. There being no clear showing as against the city for the equitable relief prayed, the decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed without prejudice to any rights, if any, complain
Summary: The decree appealed from dismissed a second amended bill of complaint brought to enjoin the city from discharging "raw or untreated sewerage" into the waters connected with the city and for incidental relief, it being alleged that such discharge peculiarly injures complainants' oyster beds in connecting waters. There being no clear showing as against the city for the equitable relief prayed, the decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed without prejudice to any rights, if any, complaina..
More
A court of equity may properly refuse to grant an injunction when it appears that greater injury and inconvenience will be caused to the defendant by granting the injunction than will be caused to the complainant by refusing it. See cases cited in briefs of counsel appended to Missouri v. Illinois,200 U.S. 496. And laches in such cases is universally held to be a bar to the drastic remedy of injunction. My view is that the present case is clearly within Harrisonville v. Dickey, etc., 60, 77 L. Ed. 1208, 289 U.S. 334, where it was held that injunction will be denied where substantial redress can be afforded by payment of money, even in cases where fact of nuisance is clearly established.
TERRELL, BROWN and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
