- (1.) It appears to me that this special appeal must be dismissed with costs. The plaint shows no cause of action whatever. The case is that the defendant has made two doors in a wall upon his own land. The plaintiff complains of this, alleging it to be "contrary to the ancient practice," and says that by the opening of the doors, and by the coming and going which may take place in and out of these doors, there is danger of the plaintiff's being dispossessed of his land and that he is altogether injured by the opening of the doors. The suit also was brought to obtain an order for closing a well situated upon the lands of the plaintiff himself. No question is now raised with reference to this well, because, as the Judge of the lower appellate Court has stated, the Munsiff, on enquiry and personal observation, found that the well was no longer in existence. Therefore, when the case was heard by the lower appellate Court, there was no appeal as to the well, and the only point tried was whether the doors in question ought or ought not to be ordered to be closed. As it is admitted that the wall in which the doors have been opened, is situated upon the lands of the defendant and belongs to him, and as there is no allegation or suggestion of any injury having actually accrued to the plaintiff, excepting such as has been caused or may be caused by the defendant coming out of his door, and trespassing upon the land of the plaintiff, it seems to me that the present suit cannot lie. Unless the opening of the doors is in itself such an irremediable injury to the plaintiff that be would not be sufficiently compensated by money damages, the Court would, under no circumstances, order the doors to he closed up.
(2.) The plaintiff, however, absolutely alleges no damage whatever as accruing to him or his property from the opening of the doors. The only damage indicated is damage arising from a course of conduct which has been adopted by the defendant, or I should rather say, which may perhaps hereafter, at some future period, be adopted by the defendant, namely, a habit of trespassing upon the plaintiff's land. If the defendant does trespass upon the plaintiff's land, then, no doubt, the plaintiff will be able to enforce his rights against him and prevent him from so doing; but the mere possibility of the defendant hereafter trespassing upon the land, and even the fact that the defendant has already occasionally trespassed upon the land by going out of these doors, are no legal reasons why the relief prayed for in this suit should be granted.
(3.) On the case as it is now presented to the Court, the plaintiff has no right to have these doors closed up. We do not decide that these doors being there, the defendant has a right to trespass on the plaintiff's land. What the actual rights of the parties may be, we cannot now say. We merely decide that these doors cannot be ordered in this suit to be closed. The special appeal must be dismissed with costs. Frederick Augusta Bernard Glover, J. I am of the same opinion. Up to this time the plaintiff has suffered no injury, and it will be time enough for him to bring a suit when the defendant trespasses on his land.;