Wheelock v. . Noonan
13 N.Y. St. Rep. 110, 108 N.Y. 179, 15 N.E. 67 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity has the power to grant a mandatory injunction to remedy a continuing trespass when the legal remedy of repeated actions for damages is inadequate to restore the plaintiff to their rights and would result in a multiplicity of suits.
Facts:
- Wheelock, the plaintiff, granted Noonan, the defendant, a license to place a 'few rocks' on his unoccupied lots for a short time.
- Noonan assured Wheelock that he would remove the rocks by the following spring.
- No consideration was paid for this license.
- During the winter, without Wheelock's knowledge, Noonan covered six of the lots with huge quantities of rock, piled to a height of fourteen to eighteen feet.
- In the spring, Wheelock discovered the abuse of the license and demanded that Noonan remove the rocks.
- Noonan promised to remove the rocks but repeatedly failed to do so, leaving them on Wheelock's land.
Procedural Posture:
- Wheelock (plaintiff) sued Noonan (defendant) in the trial court, seeking equitable relief.
- The trial court found for Wheelock and issued a judgment requiring Noonan to remove the rocks from the land.
- Noonan (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the New York Court of Appeals.
- On appeal, Noonan (appellant) contended that the equitable relief was improper because Wheelock (appellee) had an adequate remedy at law.
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 power to grant a mandatory injunction compelling a defendant to remove a large quantity of rocks from a plaintiff's land, where the rocks were placed in excess of a license that has since been revoked, and the legal remedy would require a multiplicity of lawsuits for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Finch, J.
Yes. A court of equity has the power to grant such an injunction because the legal remedy is inadequate. Noonan's actions of placing huge quantities of rock on Wheelock's land far exceeded the scope of the parol license granted. Once Wheelock revoked the license and demanded removal, the continued presence of the rocks became a continuing trespass. The legal remedy of suing for damages is inadequate for two primary reasons. First, Wheelock would be limited to recovering damages incurred up to the date of the lawsuit, necessitating a multiplicity of successive actions for the ongoing trespass. Second, this would allow Noonan to effectively become a tenant on Wheelock's land by simply paying damages, which fails to restore Wheelock's property rights. The alternative of requiring Wheelock to remove the rocks himself and sue for the cost would unfairly burden the injured party. Therefore, equitable relief in the form of a mandatory injunction is the only adequate remedy to end the continuing wrong and restore the plaintiff to his rights.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational illustration of the principle that equitable relief is available when the remedy at law is inadequate. It clarifies that for a continuing trespass, the option to sue for damages repeatedly is not considered an 'adequate' remedy because it leads to a multiplicity of suits and fails to provide complete relief. The decision solidifies the power of mandatory injunctions as a tool to compel a defendant to take affirmative action to rectify a wrong, rather than simply paying compensation. This precedent is crucial for property law, as it ensures landowners are not forced into a de facto lease with a trespasser and can reclaim full possession and use of their land.
