FAIRRINGTON v. DYKE WATER COMPANY (1957)

This is an action for injunctive relief and to quiet title. Plaintiffs are the owners of the following described property situate in the county of Orange, State of California:

Lots Six (6) and Seven (7) in Block ‘A’ of Brown's Addition of Garden Grove, as per Map recorded in Book 21, page 92, of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, California; also the South 10 feet of Ocean Avenue, adjoining said lots on the North as abandoned by Order of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, May 20, 1907.

In December, 1952, the defendant, Dyke Water Company, purchased from Henry W. Fairrington and Irma I. Fairrington, plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, real property adjoining plaintiffs' property on the south, and described as:

The East half of Lot 13, all of Lot 14, and the West half of Lot 15, Block ‘A’, of Brown's Addition to the Town of Garden Grove, as shown on a map recorded in Book 21, page 92 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, California.

The escrow instructions contained the following provisions:

‘The Sellers also give to the Buyers permission to erect a sign on Garden Grove Boulevard between the driveway and the sidewalk next to the Post Office Building.’

Henry W. Fairrington and his wife, Irma, parents of plaintiffs, both died in September, 1953, and plaintiffs inherited the property herein specifically first above described. Shortly after September, 1953, defendant placed upon the northwest corner of Lot 7 of plaintiffs' property a sign bearing the words ‘Dyke Water Company’. This sign was mounted upon a 6 1/2 inch pipe, embedded in a concrete base. Plaintiffs demanded that defendant remove this sign and upon their refusal so to do, this action was filed.

The court found, in addition to the foregoing facts, that defendant purchased the property in reliance upon the permission given to erect said sign, but with full knowledge that such permission was a revokable license; that defendant expended money in the erection of said sign and that said sign is a substantial benefit to defendant in the carrying on of its business; that said sign constitutes no substantial detriment to plaintiffs at the present time and does not interfere with any present or contemplated use of their property by them. The court concluded that defendant was granted a revokable license to install said sign; that said license was revoked by the deaths of Henry W. Fairrington and Irma I. Fairrington; that relief to plaintiffs should be withheld ‘at this time’ by the court sitting in equity and that the court retains jurisdiction to entertain further application by plaintiffs for injunctive relief. The judgment was ‘1. That relief to plaintiffs should be withheld at this time by the Court sitting in equity; 2. That the Court retains jurisdiction to entertain a future application by the plaintiffs herein for injunctive relief.’

Plaintiffs appeal on the judgment roll alone and contend that the court erred in refusing them immediate injunctive relief. Defendant has not appealed from the judgment.

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in not granting immediate injunctive relief in accordance with the findings. However, the trial court evidently was of the opinion that defendant by equity should be permitted to leave the sign on plaintiffs' property for some reasonable time until it caused a detriment to plaintiffs and jurisdiction was retained to entertain further application for injunctive relief.

This is an action in equity and it is the general rule that a court of equity, having once acquired jurisdiction, will adjust all differences between the parties arising from the cause of action in order to do complete justice and prevent further litigation, whether or not the particular relief sought was requested. Sears v. Rule, 27 Cal.2d 131, 149, 163 P.2d 443. In Lobdell v. Miller, 114 Cal.App.2d 328, 344, 250 P.2d 357, 367, it was held:

‘Where it is possible to bring about substantial justice by adjusting the equities between the parties, the fact that the status quo cannot be exactly reproduced will not preclude the plaintiffs from equitable relief. No matter what may be the complications or complexities, the powers of a court of equity are so broad as to adequately meet the exigencies of the case and render a decree which will justly determine the rights of the respective parties.’

In Lewis v. Winfield, 48 Cal.App.2d 543, 545, 120 P.2d 65, it was held that on the broad principle of equity that where jurisdiction is once attained, and the parties have joined issue, the court will endeavor to dispose of the entire controversy, the judgment here should be affirmed if it is within the equities and not a miscarriage of justice. In Riverside Rancho Corp. v. Cowan, 88 Cal.App.2d 197, 203, 198 P.2d 526, 530, it was held that ‘Under the pleadings, the evidence and the findings the court, with its broad jurisdiction in equity, was empowered to do exact justice to the parties and to enter a judgment that would fairly meet the situation.’ It is a basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that he who seeks equity must also do equity. 18 Cal.Jur., Equity, Sec. 30, p. 190.

In the instant case it does not appear that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order the immediate removal of the sign involved. It may reasonably be inferred that defendant relied upon the permission given to erect said sign at the time it purchased the property and the record shows that it spent $250 in the erection of said sign. There is evidence that the trial court was attempting to do equity by giving defendant a reasonable time within which to comply with the demand of plaintiffs, reserving jurisdiction to enforce its findings.

Judgment affirmed.

MUSSELL, Justice.

BARNARD, P. J., concurs.