Winola Lake & Land Co. v. Gorham
| Decision Date | 24 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1212.,1212. |
| Citation | 13 F. Supp. 721 |
| Parties | WINOLA LAKE & LAND CO., Inc., v. GORHAM. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Otto Robinson and James K. Peck, both of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.
R. W. Trembath, of Tunkhannock, Pa., and O'Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
This is a motion to dismiss a bill in equity on the grounds that the bill fails to show that the amount involved exceeds $3,000, and fails to show the right to proceed in equity, for the reason that there is no adequate remedy at law.
The bill in equity avers in substance that complainant is lessee for a period of ten years, from June, 1935, of Lake Winola and certain abutting lands, that complainant conducts a business of granting licenses and privileges for the use of said lands and waters for the purpose of boating, bathing, fishing, and skating; that over 300 licensees are using the privileges granted thereby, and that there are other potential licensees; that the value of complainant's property, which exceeds $10,000, depends upon the exclusive use for recreational purposes; that defendant has from July 12, 1935, continuously trespassed upon the lands and waters of complainant by boating, swimming, and otherwise and has aided, abetted, and conspired with others to continue to trespass; that defendant, with other persons under his direction, on one occasion caused a trespass sign to be removed and destroyed and caused a large stone to be thrown at certain agents of complainant; that because of defendant's continuous trespasses and open declaration to continue and by his procurement and encouragement of other persons continuously to trespass, the complainant has been deprived of its right to the free and uninterrupted use and possession of its lands and waters, without which it will suffer irreparable and complete loss of business and will lose the sale of licenses and privileges for the use of said lake; wherefore, complainant prays that defendant, his agents, employees, or other persons under his direction be enjoined from trespassing on the lands and waters of complainant or interfering with the complainant or its business, and prays for damages for the loss of the use and enjoyment of its property as well as for exemplary damages resulting from the aggravated and wanton acts of defendant.
In suits for injunctions, the amount in controversy is tested by the value of the right which is sought to be protected or the object to be gained by the bill and not the amount which complainant might recover at law for the acts about which complaint is made. Hughes Federal Practice, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Electric Coal Companies v. Rice
...Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 45 F.2d 299, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 843, 51 S.Ct. 489, 75 L.Ed. 1452; Winola Lake & Land Co. v. Gorham, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 721; American Hide & Leather Co. v. Andersen, 153 Ill.App. 79; McGuire v. Boyd Coal & Coke Co., 236 Ill. 69, 86 N.E. 174; Fox ......
-
Colony Coal & Coke Corporation v. Napier
...C.C., 103 F. 708; In re Turner, C.C., 119 F. 231; Swan Island Club, Inc., v. Ansell, 4 Cir., 51 F.2d 337; Winola Lake & Land Co., Inc., v. Gorham, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 721. This is not at variance with the general rule that in a suit for an injunction, the amount involved for the purpose of det......