Citation Numbers: 169 A. 322, 54 R.I. 32
Judges: HAHN, J.
Filed Date: 12/6/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This cause is before us upon appeal of the respondents, under the provisions of Section 34, Chapter 339, General Laws 1923, from an interlocutory decree granting to complainant a temporary injunction.
Complainant obtained a judgment against respondents in an action of trespass and ejectment which was affirmed by this court (Ricci v. Matteodo,
In deciding this appeal we have also before us for consideration the papers in another cause in equity, heard before the Superior Court with the present cause, wherein these respondents were denied a temporary injunction against *Page 34 this complainant to prevent his interference with or interruption of a purported easement right which they claimed in said lot. Their appeal to this court from said denial was denied and dismissed.
The rights which respondents sought in the above-mentioned cause, namely, to enjoy full use of the property — as a clothes yard, as a playground for their children, as a passage to and from their dwelling and as a general recreation place — and to secure such use by maintaining a fence and gate about the property, are practically coextensive with the rights claimed by them in the trespass and ejectment action wherein respondents unsuccessfully presented a claim of title in the property. Although later, and at present, claiming only an easement, respondents seek to secure for themselves practically all benefits ordinarily incident to ownership of land, leaving complainant merely the obligations and liabilities of legal but not beneficial ownership thereof.
Complainant, on the other hand, has duly obtained a judicial determination of his title to the land and, on the facts shown, aprima facie right to the possession of it unobstructed by the respondents. As respondents, before the judicial determination of their claim of right to use the land in question, have repeatedly by their trespasses sought to evade the result of the trespass and ejectment action adjudging title in complainant, they cannot complain if they now face a mandatory injunction which is the only practical method, under the circumstances, by which complainant can avail himself of the rights adjudged to be his.
It has been repeatedly held that, in case of continuing trespasses, a preliminary mandatory injunction may issue:Wheelock v. Noonan,
The respondents' appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.