which a court of equity will rarely exercise the right to issue this writ are those which involve the determination of purely political rights.272 Municipal authorities also in the enforcement of police regulations or, stated in another way, in the exercise of the police power, are rarely interfered with.273 The relief afforded by writ of injunction will not be granted in cases where the injury is remote and contingent,274 where the relief can be obtained at law,275 or where the injury complained of does not result in a special damage to the one complaining.276 However, as will be noted in some of the following sections, where the right of a taxpayer passable. Touzalin v. City of Omaha, 25 Neb. 817, 41 N. W. 796. 272 McKinney v. Bradford County Com'rs, 26 Fla. 267, 4 So. 855; Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Ill. 237; Harris v. Schryock, 82 Ill. 119; Roudanez v. City of New Orleans, 29 La. Ann. 271; Wells v. City of New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 676; Bynum v. Burke County Com'rs, 101 N. C. 412; Contempt Proceedings v. Grear, 9 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 299; Ex parte Lumsden, 41 S. C. 553, 19 S. E. 749. Spelling, Injunctions (1st Ed.) §§ 630 et seq. and § 692. 273 Hine v. City of New Haven, 40 Conn. 478; Olympic Athletic Club v. Speer, 29 Colo. 158, 67 Pac. 161; Sheen v. Stothart, 29 La. Ann. 630; Hottinger v. City of New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 629, 8 So. 575. Spelling, Injunctions (1st Ed.) §§ 628 and 691. 274 Ferguson v. City of Selma, 43 Ala. 398; Merriam v. Yuba County Sup'rs, 72 Cal. 517, 14 Pac. 137; Lewis v. Denver City Water-works Co., 19 Colo. 236, 34 Pac. 993; Roudanez v. City of New Orleans, 29 La. Ann. 271; State v. Withrow, 154 Mo. 397, 55 S. W. 460; City of San Antonio v. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 56 S. W. 97; Pedrick v. City of Ripon, 73 Wis. 622, 41 N. W. 705, 3 L. R. A. 269. See, also, authorities cited in preceding section. 275 Winkler v. Winkler, 40 Ill. 179; Cason v. Harrison, 135 Ind. 330, 35 N. E. 268; Lowe v. White County Com'rs, 156 Ind. 163, 59 N. E. 466; Smith v. Goodknight, 121 Ind. 312, 23 N. E. 148; Newman v. City of Emporia, 41 Kan. 583, 21 Pac. 593; Weber v. Timlin, 37 Minn. 274, 34 N. W. 29. Statutes provide a mode for contesting county seat locations and afford a full remedy; injunction will not therefore lie. Fort v. Thompson, 49 Neb. 772, 69 N. W. 110. A court will not enjoin the punishment of an officer, the remedy being complete at law by quo warranto. West v. City of New York, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 539; Wood v. City of Victoria, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 46 S. W. 284; Manly Mfg. Co. v. Broaddus, 94 Va. 547, 27 S. E. 438; Sage v. Town of Fifield, 68 Wis. 546, 32 N. W. 629. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 13 et seq. But see Sweatt v. Faville, 23 Iowa, 321. See, also, authorities cited in § 1129. 276 Harrell v. Hannum, 56 Ga. 508; Barber County Com'rs v. Smith, 48 Kan. 331, 29 Pac. 565; Doolittle v. Broome County Sup'rs, 18 N. Y. 155; Wood v. City of Victoria, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 46 S. W. 284. to restrain the public authorities in a threatened illegal use or disposition of public property is discussed, the interest sufficient to sustain the party applying is not required to be substantial in amount nor will it be closely scrutinized in other respects.277 § 1131. Purpose for which writ will issue. The objects for which this remedial writ will issue are many and naturally cover every act of a public official or of a public corporation where the conditions exist which will authorize its issue. It is impossible therefore in this work to more than suggest a few of the most important, leaving to the litigant the knowledge that for every wrong there is a remedy and that courts of equity exist for the sole purpose of affording relief when all other means fail.278 § 1132. Actions pertaining to real property. A common class of cases in which the writ has been granted are those pertaining to real property either in respect to matters affecting the title,279 the protection of possessory rights 280 or 277 Barry v. Goad, 89 Cal. 215, 26 Pac. 785; City of Springfield v. Edwards, 84 Ill. 626; Huesing v. City of Rock Island, 128 Ill. 465, 21 N. E. 558; Harney v. Indianapolis, C. & D. R. Co., 32 Ind. 244; City of Baltimore v. Gill, 31 Md. 375. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) '§ 678. "Whether or not the danger of loss to the public treasury, and the consequent charge upon taxpayers, constitutes irreparable injury within the general rule requiring it to be shown, seems immaterial. The demoralization in public administration of municipal affairs, if no such right of interference were recognized, ought to justify an exception based upon considerations of public welfare." But see Brasher v. Miller, 114 Ala. 485, 21 So. 467; Birmingham v. Cheetham, 19 Wash. 657, 54 Pac. 37. See, also, Business Mens' League v. Waddill, 143 Mo. 495, 40 L. R. A. 501. 278 City of East St. Louis v. Village of New Brighton, 34 Ill. App. 494; City of Alpena v. Alpena Circuit Judge, 97 Mich. 550, 56 N. W. 941. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) § 675. 279 Miller v. City of Mobile, 47 Ala. 163; McIntyre v. Storey, 80 Ill. 127; Touzalin v. City of Omaha, 25 Neb. 817, 41 N. W. 796; Coast Co. v. Borough of Spring Lake, 56 N. J. Law, 615, 36 Atl. 21; Dailey v. Nassau County R. Co., 52 App. Div. 272, 65 N. Y. Supp. 396; Sperry v. City of Albina, 17 Or. 481, 21 Pac. 453; Town of Weston v. Ralston, 48 W. Va. 170, 36 S. E. 446. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 180 et seq. 280 City of Huntington v. Coast, 149 Ind. 255, 48 N. E. 1025; Brower v. City of New York, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 282 easements,281 the prevention of an injury to the property itself," or to prevent an illegal taking and injury under a claim of public right.283 In this connection the protection of water or riparian rights may be considered.284 Municipal corporations frequently in the establishment and maintenance of a system of water supply commit or threaten to commit acts which effect an injury to the water or riparian rights of private persons." § 1133. Protection against nuisances. 285 A writ of injunction is frequently granted as a protection against the creation of or the maintenance of a nuisance whether it be public or private in its character.286 This is best considered 254; State v. Goodnight, 70 Tex. 682, 11 S. W. 119. 281 Caldwell v. Town of Galt, 27 Ont. App. 162; Hart v. Buckner (C. C. A.) 54 Fed. 925; City Council of Montgomery v. Parker, 114 Ala. 118, 21 So. 452; Cabbell v. Williams, 127 Ala. 320, 28 So. 405. Easement of access to property. Ruffner V. Phelps, 65 Ark. 410, 46 S. W. 728; Roman v. Strauss, 10 Md. 89; Jay v. Michael, 92 Md. 198, 48 Atl. 61; Armstrong v. City of St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 151; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas, 75 Mich. 54, 21 So. 601; O'Rourke v. City of Orange, 51 N. J. Law, 561, 26 Atl. 858; Hoag v. Pierce, 65 Hun, 424, 20 N. Y. Supp. 224. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 219 et seq. But see Christian v. City of St. Louis, 127 Mo. 109, 29 S. W. 996. 282 Collins v. City of Keokuk, 91 Iowa, 293, 59 N. W. 200. 283 Miller v. City of Mobile, 47 Ala. 163; Murphy v. Southern R. Co., 99 Ga. 207, 24 S. E. 867; Willett v. Woodhams, 1 Ill. App. 411; City of Lafayette v. Bush, 19 Ind. 326; Oliphant v. Atchison Co., 18 Kan. 386; Poirier v. Fetter, 20 Kan. 47; Dudley v. Trustees of Frankfort, 51 Ky. (12 B. Mon.) 610; Knox v. Police Jury of East Baton Rouge, 27 La. Ann. 204; Folley v. City of Passaic, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Green) 216; Jersey City v. Fitzpat rick, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 97; New York v. Mapes, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 46; City of Baldwin v. City of Buffalo, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 396; Clark v. City of Providence, 10 R. I. 437; Pierpont v. Town of Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 215; Mason City Salt & Min. Co. v. Town of Mason, 23 W. Va. 211; Lumsden v. City of Milwaukee, 8 Wis. 485; Uren v. Walsh, 57 Wis. 98. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 273 et seq. 284 Daniel v. Town of Princeton, 15 Ky. L. R. 108, 22 S. W. 324; Attorney General v. Woods, 108 Mass. 436. 285 Holtz v. Hoyt, 34 Ill. App. 488; Winchell v. City of Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101, 85 N. W. 668. 286 Ferguson v. City of Selma, 43 Ala. 398; Cleveland v. Citizens' Gaslight Co., 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Green) 201. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) c. 7. See, also, § 871, ante. by the statement of concrete illustrations. A nuisance can be created through the occupation of public highways by railroad tracks,287 telephone poles or wires, 288 or other obstacles 289 constituting an obstruction either to the proper use 290 of the highway 287 City of Waterloo v. Waterloo St. R. Co., 71 Iowa, 193, 32 N. W. 329; District Attorney v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 82 Mass. (16 Gray) 242; City of Gloversville v. Johnstown, G. & K. Horse R..Co., 66 Hun, 627, 21 N. Y. Supp. 146; Jersey City v. Central R. Co., 40 N. J. Eq. (13 Stew.) 417, 2 Atl. 262; Stockton v. Atlantic Highlands R. B. & L. B. Elec. R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 418, 32 Atı. 680; O'Brien v. Buffalo Traction Co., 165 N. Y. 637, 59 N. E. 1128, affirming 31 App. Div. 632, 52 N. Y. Supp. 322; Town of Eastchester v. New York W. & C. Traction Co., 30 Misc. 571, 63 N. Y. Supp. 1032. See, also, Talbot v. New York & H. R. Co., 78 Hun, 473, 29 N. Y. Supp. 187. Attorney General v. London & N. W. R. Co., 68 Law J. Q. B. 4, affirmed 69 Law J. Q. B. 26 (1900) 1 Q. B. 78. An injunction will not issue restraining a railroad company from disregarding statutory provisions in respect to speed of trains at turnpike crossings even though no actual injury to the public be proved. 288 Paterson R. Co. v. Grundy, 51 N. J. Eq. 213, 26 Atl. 788. A street car company placing overhead wires along the street without authority is not entitled to an injunc tion restraining people from cutting them. City of Utica v. Utica Tel. Co., 24 App. Div. 361, 48 N. Y. Supp. 916; Mantell v. Bucyrus Tel. Co., 20 Ohio Circ. R. 345. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) § 225. See, also, Mutual Elec. Light Co. v. Ashworth, 118 Cal. 1, 50 Pac. 10. 289 Martin v. Marks, 154 Ind. 549, 57 N. E. 249. Fence. Clayton County v. Herwig, 100 Iowa, 631, 69 N. W. 1035; Ellison v. City of Louisville, 17 Ky. L. R. 593, 31 S. W. 723; Village of Buffalo v. Harling, 50 Minn. 551, 52 N. W. 931. Erection of building on land alleged to have been dedicated as a street. McLemore v. McNeley, 56 Mo. App. 556; Inhabitants of Franklin v. Nutley Water Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 601, 32 Atl. 381. The writ will issue to prevent the laying of water pipes in public streets without the consent of the town. Hoey v. Gilroy, 14 N. Y. Supp. 159; Coykendall v. Durkee, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 260. But see Town of Newcastle v. Haywood, 67 N. H. 178, 37 Atl. 1040. Injunction will not issue where the question of right in respect to maintaining a fence in a highway has not been determined by law. See, also, §§ 864 et seq., ante. 290 City of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. (U. S.) 91; City of Pittsburg v. Epping-Carpenter Co., 194 Pa. 318, 45 Atl. 129. The writ will issue to enjoin the construction by an individual of the building on land dedicated to a public use. Pettibone v. Hamilton, 40 Wis. 402. But see State v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766. Injunction will not lie where a city has its easement in a street. or to some of the private rights of the owners of abutting property.201 The acts of public officials in granting licenses or permits may also result in the same condition, namely, the existence of a nuisance. The erection,' 292 maintenance or use 293 of public buildings or facilities, under some circumstances, also create conditions calling for this relief. A court of equity will interfere and restrain by injunction the execution of a contract by a public corporation where the same involves the illegal use of public moneys or property,294 where it is ultra vires 295 or illegal because of irregularities in conditions pre 291 City Council of Montgomery v. Parker, 114 Ala. 118, 21 So. 452; Yolo County v. City of Sacramento, 36 Cal. 193; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Strauss, 37 Md. 237; Gustafson v. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334, 57 N. W. 1054, 22 L. R. A. 565; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 54, 21 So. 601; Henry v. Trustees of Perry Tp., 48 Ohio St. 671, 30 N. E. 1123; Reighard v. Flinn, 189 Pa. 355, 42 Atl. 23, 43 L. R. A. 502. But see Redman v. Monongahela Boulevard Co., 189 Pa. 437, 42 Atl. 133. See, also, cases cited under third note of § 1131. 292 Kansas City v. Hobbs, 62 Kan. 866, 62 Pac. 324. Injunction denied in the absence of material and necessary allegations. 293 Herr v. Central Ky. Lunatle Asylum, 17 Ky. L. R. 320, 30 S. W. 971; Field v. Inhabitants of West Orange, 36 N. J. Eq. (9 Stew.) 118. Discharge of sewage may be enjoined. Soule v. City of Passaic, 47 N. J. Eq. 28, 20 Atl. 346; Rowbotham v. Jones, 47 N. J. Eq. 337, 20 Atl. 731, 19 L. R. A. 663. Insane asylum. Seaman v. Lee, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 607; Sammons v. City of Gloversville, 34 Misc. 439, 70 N. Y. Supp. 284. A plaintiff has the right where his property is injured by the discharge of city sewage to enjoin the defendant alone although others join in causing the injury. But see City of Tacoma v. Bridges, 25 Wash. 221, 65 Pac. 186. 294 Taylor v. Montreal Harbour Com'rs, 17 Rap. Jud. Que. C. S. 275. That a private person may maintain an injunction to restrain the public corporation from entering into a contract it is necessary for him to show that some private right peculiar to himself has been inflicted and that a private injury separate and distinguishable from injury to the public generally will result to him. Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241, 37 Atl. 506, 1080; Hanson v. William A. Hunter Elec. Light Co. (Iowa) 48 N. W. 1005. 225 Yarnell v. City of Los Angeles, 87 Cal. 603, 25 Pac. 767; Adams v. Brenan, 177 Ill. 194, 52 N. E. 314, 42 L. R. A. 718. Injunction will lie to prevent the execution of a contract for public improvements providing that the contractor shall employ |