Freeman v. Scherer

Citations

• 97 Kan. 184
• 154 P. 1019
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 258

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Injunction — Drainage Diteh — Highway—Surface Water — Insufficient Evidence. A ditch was dug in a highway by a landowner and the public officers to' drain water from the highway as well as from the adjoining land, and an embankment or dike was made on the side of the ditch which served to prevent the water from passing upon the land on that side of the highway. After the enactment of chapter 175 of the Laws of 1911, which related to drainage, the ditch was deepened and the dike enlarged by the owners of the adjoining lands, the better to serve the -purpose for which they were originally made. Another landowner brought an action to prevent the maintenance of the dike, alleging that it interfered with the flow of surface water from his land. It appeared that the maintenance of the ditch had not resulted in injury to his land since the dike was rebuilt and that there was no reasonable probability that it would do so. Held, that the mere apprehension or possibility of injury did not warrant the granting of an injunction, nor is a party entitled to that remedy unless he satisfactorily shows that the injury is likely to occur and that his remedy at law is inadequate.</p> <p>2. SAME-^Equitable Considerations. One who seeks equity must do equity, and if an applicant for an injunction has encouraged, invited or contributed to the injury and loss sought to be enjoined, or acted wrongfully and illegally in respect to it, he is not entitled to the relief.</p>