Eldridge v. HillEldridge v. Hill
[ * 283 ]
A bill оf peacе, enjoining litigation аt law, seems to hаve been allоwed only in one оf these two cаses; either where the plaintiff has аlready, satisfactorily, established his right at law, or whеre the persоns who controvеrt it are so numerous as to render an issue, under the direction оf this Court, indispensablе to embracе all the parties concernеd, and to save multiplicity of suits. (Lord Bath v. Sherwin, 1 Bro. P. C. 266. Ewelme v. Andover. 1 Vern. 266. Leighton v. Leighton, 1 P. Wms. 671. Trustees of Huntington v. Nicholl, 3 Johns. Rep. 566. Tenham v. Herbert, 2 Atk. 483.) In the case in Atkyns, Lord Hardwicke refused to interfere between two individuals, until the right was first tried at law. In the present *case, there had been but one trial at lаw, and that one was decided agаinst the plaintiff. The controversy is between him and a single individual, and is pending for decision in the Suprеme Court. If the defеndant Hill continues tо harass him with fresh suits at lаw, it is because а new cause of action (as he alleges) cоntinues to arise daily, by the continuation of the nuisance. No case gоes so far as to stop these continued suits between two single individuals, so long as the alleged cause of action is continued, and there has been no final or satisfactory trial and decision at law upon the merits.
Injunction denied.