McCabe v. Watt

Citations

• 224 Pa. 253
• 73 A. 453
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 775

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Nuisance—Mandatory injunction.</p> <p>1. A mandatory injunction is a proper remedy in a proper case, and may lie to compel the abatement of a nuisance in some instances. It is an extreme remedy and should only be applied when legal rights are unlawfully invaded, or legal duties are willfully or wantonly neglected. This should be the controlling thought in the mind of a chancellor in the consideration of the respective rights and duties of the parties in a proceeding where a bill is filed praying for such relief.</p> <p>Mines and mining — Burning mine — Nuisance—Mandatory injunction — Equity.</p> <p>2. A mandatory injunction will not be granted against the lessee of a burning mine at the instance of the municipal authorities of a city within whose limits the mine is situated, where it appears that the company defendant had tried for a year and one-half to put out the fire, and resorted to every means within its power to extinguish it, and in so doing had spent an amount of money equal to its entire capital stock.</p> <p>3. In such a case the injunction will not be granted because (1) the fire has ceased to be a nuisance, and has become a public enemy; (2) the legal rights of the complainant have not been willfully and wantonly disregarded; (3) the enforcement of the injunction would require too great an amount of supervision by the court, and (4) because the corporation should not be compelled to do more than it had already done.</p>