Summary

David Davis Watson v. Sutherland — Opinion of the Court

If the remedy at law is sufficient, equity cannot give relief, 'but it is not enough that there is a remedy at law; it must be plain and adequate, or in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice, and its prompt administration, as the remedy in equity.' [1] How could Sutherland be compensated at law, for the injuries he would suffer, should the grievances of which he complains be consummated?
Source: Wikisource

David Davis Watson v. Sutherland — Opinion of the Court

Loss of trade, destruction of credit, and failure of business prospects, are collateral or consequential damages, which it is claimed would result from the trespass, but for which compensation cannot be awarded in a trial at law.
Commercial ruin to Sutherland might, therefore, be the effect of closing his store and selling his goods, and yet the common law fail to reach the mischief. To prevent a consequence like this, a court of equity steps in, arrests the proceedings in limine; brings the parties before it
Source: Wikisource

David Davis Watson v. Sutherland — Opinion of the Court

If the appellants made the levy, and prosecuted it in good faith, without circumstances of aggravation, in the honest belief that Wroth & Fullerton owned the stock of goods (which they swear to in their answer) , and it should turn out, in an action at law instituted by Sutherland for the trespass, that the merchandise belonged exclusively to him, it is well settled that the measure of damages, if the property were not sold, could not extend beyond the injury done to it, or, if sold, to the value of it, when taken, with interest from the time of the taking down to the trial.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature