Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/235

 BT. LOUIS V. THE KNAPP, STOCT & 00. OOMPANT. 228 �join in such suit ail persons vrbo have sustained in jury; but it iis clearly necessary that the complainant should show that he bas sustained or is in danger of sustaining indiyidual dani' age. It is, to say the least, doubtful whether the bill in this case brings the complainant \cithin this rule. M. d M, R- Co. T. Ward, 2 Black, 485 ; Irwin v. Dixon, 9 How. 10. �Upon the second question there is less room for doubt. The respondents are proeeeded against to prevent a construc- tion which, it is averred, will be a nuisance if completed. The structure complained of bas not been built, but is in the course of construction. The bill avers that, if constructed, it will be an obstruction to navigation, and will resuit in damage to the complainant. Courts of equity rarely interfere by injunction against threatened nuisances. To justify such interference the case must be clear; that is to say, it must appear that the threatenod structure will, if erected, be a nui- sance ^er 86. If it may or may not become so, a court of equity wiU not interpose in advance to prevent its erection, espe- cially in a case like the present, where it appears that the structure complained of is about to be erected in the river by a riparian proprietor, who has an undoubted legal right to place it and maintain it there, if his doing so does not inter- fere with navigation, or damage others. Where it can be said that it is dnoertain whether the structure, if erected, would be an obstruction to navigation, or injurious to com- plainant's rights, equity will not interfere. High on Injunc- tions, § 488. �It is true that the bill alleges in general terms that the effect of driving the piles in the bed of the river, and construct- ing the runway as proposed by respondent, will be to divert the navigable water of the river from its natural course, and also to cause the deposit of mud and sediment, so as to pre- vent beats from approaching it, or landing at the improved wharf provided by complainant. But this is only the expres- sion of an opinion or apprehension on the part of the com- plainant. The runway, when constructed, may not produce the resulta apprehended, and it seems to be well settled that it is not enough for the complainant to allege that particular ��� �