Orne v. Fridenberg

Citations

• 143 Pa. 487
• 22 A. 832
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 939

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(a) Plaintiff filed a bill for a mandatory injunction restraining the maintenance of certain structures upon an adjoining lot, in violation of restrictive conditions imposed on a conveyance of defendants’ lot in 1825. All the structures complained of were in full view upon the lot for many years before the bill was filed:</p> <p>1. A chancellor does not interfere by way of mandatory injunction, even though the injury be clearly established, when there has been long-continued delay in asserting the right, and a remedy exists at law; wherefore, the laches of the plaintiff defeated his right to the relief by injunction asked for.</p> <p>2. Moreover, there had been such a change of surroundings in the neighborhood, in the character of the improvements, and in the purposes to which they were applied, as might well have been deemed sufficient to justify a chancellor in refusing to restrain the violation of building restrictions such as were complained of.</p> <p>3. The plaintiff might have brought his action at law, or he might, as he did, file his bill for an injunction. While, for the reasons given, he was not entitled to an injunction, he may still sue at law and recover damages, if he can show he has sustained any: Per Mr. Chief Justice Paxson :</p>