Jones v. Jefferson County

• Decision Date: 13 February 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 863
• Parties: JONES et al. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 167

203 Ala. 137

JONES et al. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY et al.

6 Div. 863

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1919

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.

Bill by Leo Jones and others against Jefferson County and certain industrial corporations for a temporary injunction to restrain complainants from polluting Valley creek, which flows through appellants' land. From decree denying temporary injunction, complainants appeal, and seek to have the temporary injunction issue from this court.

Affirmed.

Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellants.

W.K Terry, of Birmingham, and Huey & Welsh, of Bessemer, for appellees.

ANDERSON C.J.

This is an appeal by the complainant under section 4531 of the Code of 1907 from the order of the circuit judge in refusing to grant a writ of injunction after the application had been heard upon the bill and answer and affidavits and exhibits, as provided by section 4529. Our court, in the case of Davis v. Sowell, 77 Ala. 262, approvingly quoted the following rule from High on Injunctions:

"The chancery court is sometimes 'governed, in deciding an application for a preliminary injunction, by considerations of the relative convenience and inconvenience which may result to the parties from granting or withholding the writ. *** Where it appears that greater danger is likely to result from granting than from withholding the relief, or where the inconvenience seems to be equally divided as between the parties, the injunction will be refused, and the parties left as they are, until the legal right can be determined by law.' "

This Davis Case has been repeatedly cited and followed, and the above-quoted ruling is well recognized in this and other jurisdictions. 22 Cyc. 748; 14 R.C.L. p. 312.

Again in the case of English v. Progressive Co., 95 Ala 259, 10 So. 134, it is said:

"By the settled rule in this state a case must be proved which establishes the necessity of a preventive remedy--a case within that class of cases of irreparable or continuous injury which can be adequately redressed only by injunction; and in all cases where the right is doubtful, and the exercise of the power would interfere with industries promotive of public utility, it becomes the duty of the court to abstain from interfering. In such cases the proof should be clear and convincing, and the power 'should be cautiously and sparingly

...