Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dainese v. Cooke — Opinion of the Court

There is no replication to the answer in either case, and no stipulation that the affidavits may be treated as depositions on the hearing. There is no order disposing of the application for a preliminary injunction in either case.
Taking, however, the short and sententious order of the court to be as it purports,-a final hearing on bill, answer, and affidavits in each case,-we are of opinion that the preponderance of evidence as to the only issue made is in favor of the appellant.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dainese v. Cooke — Opinion of the Court

If it be true that the proper officer, on examining appellant's contract, gave a permit for the erection of such buildings as it contemplated,-and of this there is no denial,-the other side should make a clear case of departure from the permit, or danger to public interests, before appellant should be arrested midway in the construction of the buildings, and have them summarily torn down, with all the necessary loss and expense to him of such a course.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dainese v. Cooke — Opinion of the Court

The contract for the buildings, the permit to build, and the demand to remove them, are made exhibits. The latter is based upon the ground that the buildings are not in conformity with the regulations in force in the city, and that they are of insufficient material, and dangerous to the community. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction against the appellees, constituting the board of public works, of which Cluss was a member, to prevent their interference with his buildings.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature