INJUNCTIONS REGARDING TIMBER 61 



In some cases the court has rested the relief upon the par- 

 ticular relationship of the trees to the enjoyment of the 

 premises on which they stand or of other property held by 

 the plaintiff. ! Injunction has been allowed on the ground 

 that the cutting would defeat the purpose for which 

 the t^ees had been grown, such as for a sugar orchard 2 

 and refused where the injury alleged would result from a 

 use which accorded with the purpose for which they 

 were adapted. :! Cutting trees from land valuable only 

 or chiefly for the timber upon it was held in New Jersey 

 not to constitute the irreparable injury required to sup- 

 port an injunction, l but a Federal court has held to 

 the contrary. 5 The remedy will not be granted as a 

 matter of course 6 and it has frequently been refused 

 where the complainant failed to show that the injury 

 which would result from the cutting would be irre- 

 parable, 7 or where it did not appear that the trees 

 had any special or peculiar value. s 



(Footnote 3 concluded from preceding page) 



Eng. Gilmour V. Maurvit, 14 App. Cas. 045, 59 L. J. P. C. 3S, L. T. Rep. 

 X. S. 442 (Allirming 33 L. C. Jur. 231, 3 Montreal Q. B. 449). Usborne 

 v. Usborne, 1 Dick 75; Hippesley v. Spencer, 5 Madd. 422; King v. 

 Smith. 2 Hare 239. 



.Set! Humphrey v. Harrison, 1 Jac. & \V. 501; Harper v. Alpin, 54 L.T.X.S. 3S3 

 Can. McLean v. Burton, 24 Grants Ch. (U. C.) 134; Wight man v. Fields, 19 

 Grants Ch. (I". C.) 559; McDougall v. Grignon, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 

 5:55. .S'cti Robins v. Porter, 2 Can. L. J. 230. 



1. Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357, 4S Am. Rep. 572, shade trees; M usch v. Uurkhart. 



S3 Iowa 301, IS X. W. 1025, 32 Am. St. Rep. 305, 12 L. R. A. 4S4; 

 Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 152; Grillith v. Hilliard, 04 Vt. 043, 25 All. 427, char- 

 coal plant: Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga. S72, 37 S. K. 71, 52 L. R. A. 755; But see 

 Heaney v. Uutte, etc. Commercial Co., 10 Mont. 590, 27 Pac. 379. 



2. Clendening v. Old, US Ind. 40, 20 X. E. 039; Smith v. Rock, 59 Vt. 232, 9 All. 551. 



3. Carney v. Hartley, 32 Fla. 344, 14 So. 4, 37 Am. St. Rep. 101, 22 L. R. A. 233; 



Gause v. Perkins, 50 X'. C. 177, 09 Am. Dec. 72S. 



4. West v. Walker, 3 X. J. E<[. 279. 



5. Wood v. Braxton, 54 Fed. 1005. 



0. But see Markham v. Howell, 33 Ga. 50S; Smith v. Rome, 19 Ga. S9. 03 Am. Dec. 29S. 

 See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lbr. Co., (57 X". Y. Suppl. 1 19 (1900.) 



(Court will not unnecessarily assume responsibility of business enterprises.) 

 7. -"la. Wood ford v. Alexander, 35 Fla. 333, 17 So. 05S. 

 Morgan v. Baxter, 113 Ga. 144, 3S S. 10. 111. 

 Smith v. "Weldon, 73 Ind. 454. 

 ovva. Cowles v. Shaw, 2 Iowa 490. 



ii. Jordan v. I'pdegralf, McCahon 103. 



Hillman v. Hurley, S2 Ivy. 020. 

 Miss. Blewitt v. Vaughn, 5 How. 41S. 

 X. J. Cornelius v. Post, 9 X. J. Kq. 190. 

 X. Y. Grillin v. Winne, 79 X. Y. 037; Van Rensaelaer v. Griswold. 3 X. Y. Leg. 



Obs. 94 (Wild lands); Stevens v. Bcekman, 1 Johns Ch. 3 IS. 

 N. C. Thompson v. McNair, (52 N. C. 121. 

 W.Va. Cox. v. Douglass, 20 W. Va. 175. Kng. Atty-Geu'l v. Hallett, 10 L. J. 



Kxch. 131. Hi M. & W. 509. 

 s. Hatcher v. Hampton, 7 Ga. 49; Powell v. Rawlings, 3S Mich. 239. 



