Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co.
31 Am. Rep. 301 (1878)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may, in its discretion, deny an injunction against a continuing trespass or nuisance when the plaintiff purchased the property with full knowledge of the defendant's activities for the speculative purpose of forcing a sale, and where money damages provide an adequate remedy.
Facts:
- In 1874, Allouez Mining Co. built and began operating a stamp mill for copper mining on the banks of Hill creek at a cost of sixty thousand dollars.
- The mill's operations discharged large quantities of sand into the creek, which were then deposited on downstream lands.
- In 1875, one year after the mill began operating, Edwards purchased a piece of land downstream from the mill.
- Edwards was aware that sand from the mill was being deposited on the land at the time of his purchase.
- Edwards purchased the land not for personal use or occupation, but as a speculation, with the expectation of forcing Allouez Mining Co. to buy it from him at a significantly higher price.
- Shortly after his purchase, Edwards offered to sell the land to Allouez Mining Co., which declined the offer.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwards filed a bill in the circuit court seeking an injunction to stop Allouez Mining Co. from depositing sand on his land.
- The circuit court (trial court) judge refused to grant the injunction.
- Instead of granting the injunction, the circuit court ordered the case to be referred to a jury for an assessment of damages to be paid to Edwards.
- Edwards (complainant) appealed the circuit court's refusal to grant the injunction to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court of equity have the discretion to deny an injunction against a continuing trespass where the plaintiff purchased the property with full knowledge of the trespass for the speculative purpose of forcing the defendant to purchase the land at a high price?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooley, J.
Yes. A court of equity has the discretion to deny an injunction when the granting of it would be inequitable. An injunction is a remedy of grace, not of right, intended to prevent irreparable mischief. Here, the plaintiff, Edwards, did not purchase the land for a homestead or business, but as a speculation to compel the defendant to buy it. Since his purpose was monetary, an award of legal damages, which a jury can determine, is a suitable and adequate remedy that fulfills the purpose of his purchase. The court will not lend its extraordinary power to aid a speculative scheme, especially when the plaintiff invited the injury and the elements of irreparable harm—such as the destruction of a home or business—are entirely wanting.
Dissenting - Campbell, C.J.
No. A landowner's right to equitable relief against a continuous, unlawful invasion of his property is absolute and not subject to judicial discretion. The defendant is knowingly and continuously trespassing on the complainant's land, destroying its value and use. A legal remedy is inadequate because it cannot secure the future enjoyment of the property. The complainant's motive for purchasing the property is irrelevant; property rights are to be protected regardless of whether the owner's motives are selfish or not. To deny an injunction based on the owner's motives subjects private property rights to an unpredictable judicial discretion, which is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the 'balancing of the equities' doctrine in nuisance and trespass law. It establishes that an injunction, an equitable remedy, is not granted automatically upon proof of a legal wrong. The court will consider the plaintiff's conduct and motives ('clean hands' doctrine), the adequacy of legal remedies (damages), and the relative hardship to the parties. This decision tempers the absolute protection of property rights by introducing equitable considerations, suggesting that a plaintiff who speculatively 'comes to the nuisance' may be denied the powerful remedy of an injunction and be left with only a claim for damages.
