1. The injunction was properly dissolved. The case made by the bill does not show irreparable damages, nor allege insolvency of the defendants, which are the usual grounds for injunction in cases of trespass. Nor is any trespass alleged, but only the fear of it, produced by threats; there is no authority for injunction upon such a reason. Besides, the plaintiffs allege a claim to the property set up by the defendant Rubio. All the authorities hold, that this alleges the plaintiff out of Court--because Chancery will not interfere until the title is settled and undisputable.
If the affidavits read on the motion to dissolve are to be considered, then it is evident the complainants have mistaken their remedy. They should have resorted to forcible entry and detainer, or a peace warrant, if they are in possession. For the same reasons which sustain the dissolution of the in junction, the demurrer to the bill was properly sustained.
JUDGES: Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. concurring.
OPINION
BALDWIN, Judge
This bill was filed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of certain real estate--being a warehouse and premises. The bill does not aver the insolvency of the defendants, nor show that there is no adequate remedy at law. The action of forcible entry and detainer would, upon the facts, be a speedy mode of regaining a possession taken as the bill charges the defendants are preparing to take possession of this property; while, for any other damages, the usual proceeding at law would be a sufficient and effectual remedy. That this estate is used by the plaintiff in connection with business which would be interrupted by this threatened trespass, is not alone a ground for equitable interposition; for this is, if not the usual, a very frequent consequence of such trespasses.
Judgment affirmed.