Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/432

 424 rEDjLKAL rvEi>ûr.iJîrv. �in such a case, and Tthink it liasnever beîore been snpposcd tliat lie bas aii}' jurisi-Lction over sach wronn;3, if it be a -wrong, as these complai-nants ask to be restrained. No one has ventured to assert that every civil -n-rong may be restrained by injunction, and that a judge sitting in equity can enjoin against auy act that a common-law court and jury can re- dress." �In Edwards t. The Allouez Mining Co. 38 Mich. 46. an injunction to restrain a corporation from encroaching upon the land of a riparian proprietor, and polluting the stream in front, was denied upon the ground that he had bought the land upon speculation, knowing of the encroachments, and had tried to sell it to the corporation at an exhor- bitant price. The comments of Mr. Justice Cooley are per- tinent in this connection: "Wherever one keeps within the limits of lawful action, he is eertainly entitled to the pro- tection of the law, whether his motives ara commendable or not ; but if he demands more than the strict rules of law can give him, his motives may become important. In general, it niust be assumed that the ruiea of the common law will give adequate redress for any injury; and when the litigant avers that under the circumstances of his particular case they do not, and that, therefore, the gracions ear of equity should incline to hear his complaint, it may not be amiss to inquiro how he came to be placed in such circumstances." See, also, Kerr on Injunctions, 6; 2 Storys' Equity, § 959; Tucker v, Carpenter, Hemps. 440 ; Cassaday v. Cavenor, 37, lowa, 300 ; Jones V. City of Netvark, 3 Stock. 452; Cohb v. Smith, 16 Wis. 661; Bonaparte v. Camden d Ainboy R. Co. Bald. 218. �Let us apply these principles to the case under considera- tion. The auswer avers, and for the purposes of this case it must be taken as true, that ail said letters are letters and communications about and concerning a lottery knowa as the Commonwealth Distribution Company, and that ail said let- ters are intended to be received by said company, and are its exclusive property. The word "concerning," as used in this answer, must be taken in the sense in whioh it was intended by the pleader, as meaning that the letters d':'tain(d b:;l(iuged ��� �