Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/165

HEERMAN V, BEEF SLOUGH MANUF'g CO. l^"? �isfied, and does not interfere either through its legislature or by a direct proceeding in court to recover penalties, or to avoid its charter, it is not for a court of equity to step in at the instance of a private individual, declare the entire im- provements a nuisance, cause them to be removed, and enjoin acts of whieh he may complain. �In a case of such magnitude, where the interests involved are so vast, and the improvements complained of as obstruc- tions to navigation have been constructed under color of legis- lative authority, and have been used in facilitating an impor- tant branch of commerce, and acquiesced in so long, a court of equity will not interfere by perpetuai injunction until the right of the party complaining has been established at law, and it appears that no adequate compensation can be afiorded in damages. Burnham v. Kempton, 44 N. H. 78 ; Wason v. Sanborn, 45 N. H. 169-172; Ripon v. Hohart, S Mylne & Keen, 169-179; Eastman v. Manufacturing Co. 47 N. H. 71; Irwin v. Dix/m, 9 How. 10-25; Remington v. Foster, 42 Wis. 608 ; Weller v. Smeaton, 1 Cox, 102 ; Delaware e Hudson Canal Co. V. Lawrence, 2 Hun, 163-168; MoJiawk Bridge Case, 6 Paige, 554. �So long as congress does not assume jurisdiction of the river to control and direct its commerce, the defendants have the right to maintain such piers, dams and booms in the river, for facilitating the running and securing of loose logs, as the state by its legislation has authorized, though they may constitute a material obstruction to other branches of commercial enterprise on the river. And if they, in putting in such improvements, bave exceeded their authority, or have not complied with ail the conditions imposed, that is a mat- ter which cannot be inquired into and remedied in a suit of this nature by a private individual. �It is noticeable that the plaintiff does not show, by any alle- gations of fact, that he has himself sustained any special, direct and material damage beyond the public at large, on account of the erection and maintenance of the defendants' improvements at and in the vicinity of Beef Slough, which he ehould do to put him in position to maintain his suit. Ir- ��� �