Opinion of the Court. Missouri, 24; Railway v. Railway, 97 Missouri, 469; Rude v. St. Louis, 93 Missouri, 414. . It appears from the evidence that the only substantial damage which was special to plaintiff and not common to the public, shown by it, consisted in the interference with its free access from the street to its factory; the obstruction of the light and air across the open street; smoke, cinders and dust from engine and cars; noise and jarring of the ground; all caused by the movement of trains. These may cause damage to and depreciation of the value of the property, but the damage results from a legitimate use of the street, and which might have been anticipated by plaintiff as a probable use when it bought its property and erected its improvements." And it was concluded that, while for any damages that might be caused by the unlawful or negligent maintenance of the tracks in the street, or by negligent use of engines or movement of trains, defendant would be liable in an action to recover them, plaintiff had shown no ground for injunction. This decision, although rendered some years after the entry of the decree under review, must be regarded as an authoritative exposition of the previous judgments of that court upon the same subject. As a general rule, this court follows the decisions of the highest tribunals of a State, upon the construction of its constitution and laws, if they do not conflict with or impair the efficacy of some provision of the Federal Constitution, or of a Federal statute; but we are not required to express an opinion as to the applicability of that rule in this case, as the decree must be affirmed on other grounds. Whenever the power of eminent domain is about to be exercised without compliance with the conditions upon which the authority for its exercise depends, courts of equity are not curious in analyzing the grounds upon which they rest their interposition. Equitable jurisdiction may be invoked in view of the inadequacy of the legal remedy where the injury is destructive or of a continuous character or irreparable in its nature; and the appropriation of private property to public use, under color of law, but in fact without authority, is such an invasion of Opinion of the Court. private rights as may be assumed to be essentially irremediable, if, indeed, relief may not be awarded ex debito justitiæ. But where there is no direct taking of the estate itself, in whole or in part, and the injury complained of is the infliction of damage in respect to the complete enjoyment thereof, a court of equity must be satisfied that the threatened damage is substantial and the remedy at law in fact inadequate before restraint will be laid upon the progress of a public work. And if the case made discloses only a legal right to recover damages rather than to demand compensation, the court will decline to interfere. In McElroy v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. Rep. 257, which was. an application for an injunction to restrain the grading of a street in front of the complainant's lot, Mr. Justice Brewer, then Circuit Judge, considered under what circumstances a chancellor could grant such relief. It was ruled that, if the injury which the complainant would sustain from the act sought to be enjoined could be fully and easily compensated at law, while, on the other hand, the defendant would suffer great damage, and especially if the public would suffer large inconvenience, if the contemplated act were restrained, the injunction should be refused, and the complainant remitted to his action for damages. If the defendant had an ultimate right to do the act sought to be restrained, but only upon some condition precedent, and compliance with the condition. was within the power of the defendant, the injunction would almost universally be granted until the condition was complied with; but if the means of complying with the condition were not at defendant's command, then the court would adjust its order so as to give complainant the substantial benefit of the condition, while not restraining defendant from the exercise of its ultimate rights. Inasmuch as, while the statutes of Missouri provided for the assessment of damages resulting from the taking of property for public use, there existed no provision to attain that result where the property was merely damaged, an injunction was granted, with leave to the defendant to apply for the appointment of a board of commissioners to ascertain and report the damages which complainant would Opinion of the Court. sustain, upon payment of which the injunction would be vacated. Assuming, as the Circuit Court did, and as we prefer to do in disposing of the case upon this record, that if the complainant had sustained damage, it had a cause of action, we, nevertheless, entirely agree that the bill was properly dismissed. Evidence was adduced of the extent and character of the alleged damage, although the Circuit Court did not undertake to go into the question of amount, and the result was that the court concluded that the use of the track had not seriously obstructed, and would not in future seriously obstruct, access to complainant's premises, and that the lessening of the market or rental value of the property was in any event small; that a jury might find that no damage had been sustained or that it was inconsiderable; and that there was no proceeding which defendant could take to obtain an assessment of damages, if any, while the complainant had an adequate and simple remedy by an action at law. The prayer was for an unconditional injunction, and although this was coupled with a prayer for general relief, a decree different from that specifically prayed could hardly have been awarded under the general prayer, as the averments of the bill were not introduced for that purpose; and besides, the complainant explicitly disclaimed upon the hearing any desire for the ascertainment of damages in this proceeding. The statutes of Missouri provided for the assessment of compensation for the taking of property for public use, but not for such assessment where property was merely damaged, and complainant occupied the position of seeking by an absolute injunction to compel the defendant to pay such amount as accorded with its own judgment upon that matter. It may be that if this had been a case where compensation as such was demandable, the defendant, by filing a cross-bill, could have obtained an order such as was entered in McElroy v. Kansas City, but it is useless to indulge in speculation in this regard. We are satisfied that complainant was not entitled to the relief prayed, and the decree of the Circuit Court is accordingly Affirmed. Statement of the Case. NEW ORLEANS v. PAINE. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 1154. Submitted January 4, 1893. - Decided January 16, 1893. While the location of the boundary lines of a land grant is pending before the Land Department, and the proper officers are bringing to bear upon it their own judgment and discretion, the courts have no right to interfere with their action by injunction. The general rule is that the judicial power will not interpose, by mandamus or injunction, to limit or direct the action of departmental officers in respect of matters pending, within their jurisdiction and control. THIS was a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, by the city of New Orleans, suing as residuary legatee under the will of John McDonough, deceased, against the deputy surveyor general of the United States for the State of Louisiana, to enjoin him from surveying and locating a new back line or rear boundary of a French grant, and from dividing into sections lands alleged to belong to the plaintiff north of, and contiguous to, such new back line. The grant in question was made April 3, 1769, by the proper authorities of the Province of Louisiana, then an appanage of the French crown, to Pierre Delille Dupard, and was described as "thirty arpents of front to the river, upon the whole depth which shall be found unto Lake Maurepas, of the land where heretofore were two villages of the Collapissas savages," etc. Upon the acquisition of the Territory of Louisiana by the United States, under the treaty of 1803, the greater part of this grant was confirmed to John McDonough, Jr. & Co., and was described by the board of land commissioners as having "thirty-two arpents front on the Mississippi River, with a depth as far as the Lake Maurepas, with side lines diverging as they extended into the interior," etc. McDonough having purchased the interest of his partner, devised his portion of the grant, upon certain charitable uses, to the cities of New Orleans and Baltimore, and upon partition made be Statement of the Case. tween the said devisees, the lands described in the bill fell to the plaintiff. In due course the government surveyed and fixed the front and side lines of the grant, but it seems that neither of these lines touched Lake Maurepas, nor was it included between them. When, in 1885, the State of Louisiana, claiming adversely to the city of New Orleans under the swamp land grant of March 2, 1849, 9 Stat. 352, c. 87, raised the question before the General Land Office as to what depth the claims were entitled, the surveyor general of Louisiana, to whom the matter had been referred, decided that the grant should extend to Lake Maurepas and the Amite River, by extending its lower side line back to said water boundary. On appeal to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the decision of the surveyor general was affirmed; but on further appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lamar, he decided on January 6, 1888, that the depth of the grant should be determined by a straight line drawn through the centre of the grant from the front to the rear, terminating at the point of intersection of a line drawn at right angles thereto, so as to touch the lowest point of the southern shore of Lake Maurepas. The matter was referred to the surveyor general of Louisiana, who directed the defendant Paine, as deputy surveyor, to examine carefully the southern shore line of Lake Maurepas, and, if entirely satisfied from reliable evidence, that there had been a change in said shore line since the grant was made in 1769, he was to run the line according to such location, and not according to its then location. These instructions were approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under date of March 4, 1890. The defendant, the deputy surveyor, proceeded under these instructions, and satisfied himself that the southern shore line of Lake Maurepas had, for an indefinite time, been a moving line, slowly extending itself south and southwest; but as to where the shore line was in 1769, he could form no definite conclusion. "The only thing which seemed certain is that it was a long way from where it now is, and in fixing upon the distance . . I have tried to adopt a location which would probably give the |