{
  "id": 6754417,
  "name": "LONG against MERRILL and BEARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Long v. Merrill",
  "decision_date": "1817-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "112",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Taylor 112"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. 112"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35493594414191715
    },
    "sha256": "21c1baaf3e1f25b5295a6bd550ba3680345ba27ac341df171485d489fb05cfa5",
    "simhash": "1:2557e7044e8371ef",
    "word_count": 590
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:33.045765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LONG against MERRILL and BEARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Seawell, J.\ndelivered the Opinion of the Court:\nTHE Complainant files hrs' bill in the Court of Equity of Rowan County, stating that he has a right to a ferry or\u00ed the Yadkin River, and that the Defendants had attempted to obtain a ferry on the same river,- near the Complainant\u2019s, by a petition to the County Court; and that upon the determination of this Court against the Petitioners^ they have continued to set over persons, horses and car* riages, toll free, by which the Complainant is injured in\u2019 the loss of profits. The bill then charges, that the Complainant has commenced his action at L\u2019aw, and prays an Injunction. To this bill is the affidavit of Complainant, verifying, the charges set forth in the bill; whereupon ths Court grants the Injunction, and from which the Defendants appeal to this Court- And the first necessary enquiry \u215b, whether the case made by the Complainant is, if true, such a one as requires the assistance of a Court of Equity l And here, I think it may be safely laid down as as general rule, that a Court of Equity will interpose in no case where the ordinary rules of Law afford a complete and adequate relief; for the very end of the institution of \u00e1 Court of Equity is, to supply the deficiencies of the Law.\nThe ground which the Complainant makes for coming into this Court, is, the loss of profits-, but no difficulty in obtaining that loss is stated in the bill\u2014and though we may suppose it probable, that there may b\u00e9 some in ascertaining the number of persons set over, yet the Complainant dot s not allege it, \u00f3r seek to discover it, but simply prays an Injunction against setting over any others. As, therefore, the only injury or inconvenience which he alleges, is one which his action at Law is completely capable of encountering and giving relief against, by adequate damages, for aught he alleges, I see no reason for the interference of this Court: For it cannot be said to be essential to the relief or assistance of the Complainant, that this Court should award the Injunction prayed for. When I say adequate relief, I mean repairing the injury complained of, by placing the party in statu quo. And the many cases cited by the Complainant\u2019s Counsel, in which Injunctions were allowed, all went upon the ground, that a suit at Law would not restore the party to his loss, but could only give him money in lieu thereof. If, therefore, the Complainant had exhibited his own title, and had complained of a conduct in the Defendants, which, if true, \u25a0was both . a damnum injuria, I should still have thought, from the case made by the bill, there was no necessity for his calling upon a Court of Equity.\nIt is not necessary to give any opinion upon the oth\u00e9r points raised in the argument, being clearly against tho Complainant upon the first. 1",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Seawell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LONG against MERRILL and BEARD.\nA Court of \u00c9qtlity will hot interpose^1 Where the ordinary rules of law alfbrd complete and adequate relief For the Object o\u00ed Equity is to supply the deficiencies of the law. Therefore, where a person has aright to a ferry, and another sets up a free fer-r m the neighbour-hood, whereby the owner of the ferry loses his profits, an injunction Will not be granted to stay the free ferry, because \u215b Court of Law may place the owner of the ferry in statu quo."
  },
  "file_name": "0112-01",
  "first_page_order": 114,
  "last_page_order": 115
}