11 Haw. 440 | Haw. | 1898
OPINION OP THE COURT BY
This is a suit iu equity. The bill alleges in substance that complainant, a foreign corporation, is the owner of certain lands on the Island of Maui, known as Wailuku Commons, being part of the Ahupuaa of Wailuku, — Crown Lands until 1882; that while the same were Crown Lands the predecessors in interest of
The main prayers of the bill are (1) for an injunction restraining defendant from removing any portion of complainant’s said extension of its track or interfering with its said crossing; (2) for a decree commanding defendant to quit and surrender all its track laid on complainant’s lands and adjudging the same to be a fixture; (3) for damages for the alleged trespasses.
Defendant demurred to the bill on the following grounds:
“1. That it is not sworn to as required by the rules of this Honorable Court.
*442 “2. That the facts therein stated do not constitute a cause of action.
“3. That said complaint does not show that any irreparable injury is threatened to the plaintiff.
“4. That the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.
“5. That the plaintiff has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.
“6. That several causes of action have been improperly united.
“7. That a perpetual injunction is sought where there is a controversy as to the legal rights.
“8. That it appears by the bill that the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against a defendant in possession.”
The Circuit Judge sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill; from his decree the complainant appeals.
The relief prayed for in the second and third prayers above set forth is such as would ordinarily and naturally be sought through actions at law — ejectment or trespass. If this were the only relief sought it is clear that the bill could not be sustained. There would be a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. If equity could entertain a bill for such relief primarily, for what relief could it not entertain a bill? What would be left exclusively for the law courts?
It is equally clear that the bill cannot be sustained to avoid a multiplicity of suits. A single action of ejectment and for mesne profits, with possibly a second action of trespass for tearing up the track, would seem to be all that would be required at law,— both suits between the same parties and each for a different matter. Certainly no showing is made that a multiplicity of suits, as that phrase is understood in equity, would be necessary. If this is a case of “multiplicity of suits” then what case is not?
The bill must stand, if at all, upon the theory of irreparable injury and the first prayer. If complainant had not already laid its track across defendant’s track but were merely about to
Is the case different because complainant has actually laid its track? The right may still be tried at law. The general allegation of irreparable injury is still insufficient by itself. There are still no other allegations from which irreparable injury can be inferred. If complainant had been operating- its railroad over defendant’s track for a considerable period, especially if it had done so with defendant’s acquiescence, the case might be different. Equity might interfere to preserve the existing status — at least until the rights could be determined. But here it appears or may be inferred that defendant has long-been in undisturbed possession and that complainant has but just laid its track and that against defendant’s consent. The status to be preserved is rather that which has long existed than that which has just been created and that by complainant itself and under the circumstances of this case. It is not even shown that complainant has yet begun to use its extension of track or that it has any wharf or other facilities for shipping its freight at the water front or that it has ceased or cannot continue shipping its freight in the manner in which it has done
Tbe decree appealed from, dismissing tbe bill witb costs, is affirmed.