Tomlinson v. Rubio

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 [207] that 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.