Switzer v. McCulloch

Citations

• 76 Va. 777
• 1882 Va. LEXIS 80

Syllabus

<p>1. Equitable Jurisdiction—Trespass,' §-c.—Injunction—A court of equity will enjoin nuisance, trespass and the like, in order to-restrain irreparable mischief, suppress oppressive litigation, or prevent multiplicity of suits. And a hill to enjoin the construction and maintenance of a mill-dam, is not demurrable because it contains no allegation that complainant’s right has been established in a suit at law.</p> <p>2. Former Judgment—Compromise—Case at bar.—Over Co.’s land rana creek which supplied the mill of If, who, under muniments of title, owned “the ditch which conducted the water to his mill, and the entire and exclusive use of the water and the dam by which the water is raised from the creek to the ditch.” C changed the channel of the creek. Thereupon, If built a new dam across the creek just below the mouth of the ditch. At law M, the grantee of C, sued If for damages for the injury from the overflow caused by the new dam, but was cast. If then threatened suit for damages for the injury from the change of the channel. By written compromise II stipulated to pay a sum of money to If, who agreed at his own costs to restore the water-flow and release all damages; his rights to the water to remain as before. But instead of restoring the water-flow by rebuilding and maintaining the original dam, If continued to maintain the new dam. II obtained an injunction to prevent this. If pleaded the judgment at law as a settlement of the rights of the parties.</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>The compromise after the judgment at law, remitted the parties to their original rights as before the change of the creek’s channel. These rights were not affected by the judgment at law. And If hath the right to the ditch whereby the water is conducted to his mill, and the entire and exclusive use of the water which could be raised into the ditch by means of the original dam, and nothing more.</p>