12 Wash. 690 | Wash. | 1895
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This action was brought to obtain an injunction against the respondents, restraining them from further proceeding in the work of excavating for a pipe line to be used as a part of a system for the supplying of the city of Spokane with water. A temporary restraining order was issued and served upon the respondents, with a notice that on a day therein named application would be made for a temporary injunction, pending the final determination of the cause. Upon the day named in such notice the parties appeared, and the respondent, the city of Spokane, put in an answer containing some general denials and an allegation by way of affirmative defense, setting up the pendency of proceedings to condemn the land in controversy to the use of the city. Thereafter the application for a temporary injunction was heard and •denied, and an order made dismissing the cause. From this action of the court this appeal has been prosecuted. . .
We have stated that an answer was put in by the
If we examine the case as though the answer contained in the brief had been brought up in the transcript, it will follow that it must be here held that the-action was submitted to the superior court for final de
As to the first proposition, it is conceded by the appellants that one of the necessary allegations of the complaint was the ownership of the premises in controversy. This allegation was met in the answer by the statement of the defendant, the city of Spokane, that in reference thereto it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. The form of this denial is attacked by the appellants, but in our opinion it was that required by our statute in a case where the defendant has not such knowledge that he can deny the allegation, and is not so well advised of its truth that he is compelled to admit it. Hence the attack of the appellants upon the form of the allegation in the answer cannot be sustained.
They also attack it upon the ground that the facts set up in the affirmative defense were such as to show that said defendant must have had full knowledge as to the ownership, and for that reason could not allege that it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. Their argument upon this branch of the question is that since it was only necessary to proceed in the condemnation proceedings against the owners of the property, the fact that such proceedings had been instituted against them by the defendant showed that it had full knowledge as to the ownership of the premises. This argument cannot be sustained
But even if we should not determine the question upon-this technical ground, we should yet probably be of the opinion that under all the circumstances of the. case, the action of the superior court was what it should have been. The remedyby injunction is to a certain extent within the discretion of the court, and where, as in this case, it appears that such proceedings were being taken as would soon take from plaintiffs the title to the property and give them full compensation therefor, the fact that by premature action a trespass might have been committed would not, unless coupled with facts not made to appear by this complaint, entitle them to an injunction. The pnly ground upon which, under the allegations of this complaint, an injunction could be granted would be that it was necessary to prevent a multitude of suits. But the facts alleged in the answer were such as to negative the idea. that such would be the result of a. refusal of equitable relief. It was not made to appear that the defendant, the city of Spokane, was insolvent, or that full compensation for the illegal acts charged could not be had in an action at law. There was, it is'true, the general allegation in the complaint that the injury
We find no such error as would warrant us in reversing the action of the superior court, and the judgment therein rendered must be affirmed.
Anders, Scott, Dunbar and Gordon, JJ., concur.