82 Fla. 65 | Fla. | 1921
The appellant sought an injunction against the City of Miami and certain officials to restrain the municipality from enforcing a certain ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance to Eegulate Plumbing in the City of Miami,” adopted in June, 1919, and numbered 294.
It is alleged that the complainant is the owner of certain lots in the City of Miami; that he is now building and contemplates the erection of other buildings upon the property and making additions to building already located upon
A demurrer to the bill was interposed by the defendants which was sustained and the application for a temporary injunction denied.' The complainant took an appeal from that order.
The errors assigned are that the court erred in denying the application for a temporary injunction and sustaining the demurrer to the bill.
The demurrer admitted the allegations of fact well pleaded. There is no provision in the ordinance by which
The first question presented is, will equity restrain the enforcement of the ordinance under the circumstances alleged, assuming that it is void for unreasonableness in the particulars alleged, which enforcement would subject the complainant to the unnecessary expense of which he complains.
It is not apparent from the allegations of the bill that a multiplicity of suits would follow the attempted enforcement of the ordinance, nor that the complainant has no adequate remedy at law, nor that his injury would be irreparable. Whether the ordinance is a valid one is a question of law. The rule is that equity will not restrain a prosecution at law where the question is the same at law and in equity, the necessity not being apparent to protect the complainant from oppressive and vexatious litigation. See Coykendall v. Hood, 55 N. Y. Supp. 718; 20 Stand. Ency. of Proc. 182; Forcheimer v. Port of Mobile, 84 Ala. 126, 4 South. Rep. 112; Brown v. Trustees of Catlettsburg, 11
As the bill rests upon no well recognized head of equity jurisdiction, the order of the court denying the injunction and sustaining the demurrer to the bill is affirmed.