John A. Roebling Sons' Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Richmond, VA.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1887 |
| Parties | JOHN A. ROEBLING SONS' CO. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF RICHMOND, VA., and others. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Mr Quarrier, for complainant.
Brown & Ferguson, for defendants.
The complainant files its bill against the defendants, and prays for an injunction upon two grounds: First, that the defendants are trespassers upon complainant's property committing daily acts of trespass, whereby these acts become a continuous trespass; second, that one of the defendants is a national bank, organized under the national banking laws which restrain and inhibit it from doing any other business than a legitimate banking business.
As to the first ground; the case made by the bill shows that the New River Coke Company, a corporation doing business in Fayette county, West Virginia, is the owner of a tract of land in fee, on New river; and that it 'made, executed and delivered' to the complainant a lease for a portion of the tract 'bounded between the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad on the one side, and the center of New river on the other side;' that, notwithstanding the fact that said company is seized in fee of this tract of land, the defendants are erecting a wire tramway across these lands without its consent, for the purpose of transporting timber over such tramway; that such acts upon the part of the defendants are trespasses; and that the repetition of them daily, is in law a continuous trespass, and that for this reason the defendants should be restrained from building and using the tramway over the lands of complainant. The defendants appear and oppose the granting of the injunction, and file their answer, to be used as an affidavit upon this motion, denying that the complainant has legal right to the possession of the land, and in it, setting up other reasons, supported by affidavits of other persons, why the injunction should be refused. Under the view we take of the question raised, it is only necessary at this time to consider the case made by the bill. It must be conceded that the case made by the bill, presents the question whether a court of equity will use its power to restrain a wrong-doer in committing acts, which in law amount to nothing more than pure naked trespasses, where there is no allegation in the bill charging irreparable injury, and that there is no adequate remedy at law. It is a fundamental principle that equity will not interfere to stop the commission of trespass when adequate relief can be had at law by compensation in damages. To this general doctrine there are undoubtedly some exceptions, one of which is, that equity will interfere where the acts of a wrong-doer are of daily occurrence, and are in law, a continuous trespass, such as would provoke a multiplicity of suits to compensate the injured party by damages against the trespasser. Conceding this to be the law, is this case, as made upon the bill, within the exception stated? We think not. Mr. High, who is justly held by the profession as standard authority as a text writer, says that the necessity of preventing a multiplicity of suits affords an exception that will warrant the interference of the strong arm of equity, even though there be a remedy at law. But he further says that to warrant interference in such case there must be different persons assailing the same right, and the principle upon which the relief is granted has no application to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atherton v. Anderson
...As an incident to the exercise of the power of a bank to collect its debts is the right to secure and save the debt. Roebling v. First National Bank, 30 F. 744 (D.C.W. Va.), and a bank may lawfully do many things in securing and collecting its loans, in the enforcement of its rights and in ......
-
Paterson & Edey Lumber Co. v. Bank of Mobile
... ... by law.' " Concord First Nat. Bank v. Hawkins, 174 ... U.S. 364, 370, ... under the federal authorities. Roebling Sons' Co. v ... First Nat. Bank of Richmond ... ...
-
Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
...measures for these purposes is an incident to the power to incur the liability or become the creditor." See, also, Roebling v. First National Bank (D. C.) 30 F. 744; First National Bank v. Bannister, 7 Kan. App. 787, 54 P. 20; Lowe v. Ring, 106 Wis. 647, 82 N. W. 571; McCraith v. National N......
-
Snow Hill Banking & Trust Co. v. D.J. Odom Drug Co.
... ... the bank for borrowed money, plaintiff and these two ... Company, parties of the first part, and D. J Odom and R. B ... Tyer, parties ... position finds further support in Shawnee Nat. Bank v ... Grocery Co., 34 Okl. 34, 124 P ... Bannister, 7 Kan. App. 787, 54 P. 20; Roebling ... Son's Co. v. First Nat. Bank (D. C.) 30 F ... ...