Appeal from the First District.

Bill for an injunction. The complaint avers, in substance:

1. That, in 1856, Augustus W. Timms erected, at the port of San Pedro, a warehouse and wharf, leading therefrom out into the Pacific ocean—both of which were so erected on the beach of the ocean below high water mark. That said wharf was constructed for the transportation of goods to and from vessels and said warehouse, which was built for the storage of such goods; that after said warehouse and wharf were so constructed, Timms used and occupied the same without molestation for the purposes above indicated, until the spring of 1858.

2. That, on the seventh of April, 1859, Goller and plaintiff, Tomlin-son, who had derived title to the premises by mesne conveyances from Timms, and occupied the same, and run a line of teams from the warehouse to Los Angeles since June, 1858, leased for the term of six months, and delivered to the defendant Banning, said warehouse and wharf, and their teams, etc., who on the same day took into his exclusive possession said property and business.

3. That on the twenty-fourth of August, 1859, Goller sold all his right, title and interest in said property to the plaintiffs Sells and Ball, subject to said lease.

4. That on the seventh of October, 1859, (six months after the date of said lease) about sunset of that day, Banning delivered to plaintiffs the personal property mentioned in the lease aforesaid—the most of which was at and about said warehouse and wharf—and on the following morning (October 8 th) the plaintiffs peaceably took formal possession of the warehouse and wharf, and other property.

5. That defendants have combined and confederated together to dispossess by force, and keep the plaintiffs out of possession, and use, and enjoyment thereof—which use and enjoyment the plaintiffs allege they are entitled to have unmolested. That plaintiffs and their grantors had full, free and legal right to build the said warehouse and wharf, and to use, enjoy and possess the same undisturbed and unmolested.

6. That defendants Sandford and McDonald are in the employment of defendant Banning, and have threatened forcibly to drive plaintiffs and their workmen from said warehouse and wharf, and to take possession thereof; and by force to deprive and hinder plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of said properly. That Sandford and McDonald have around said warehouse and wharf a large number of men. armed with guns, pistols and other dangerous weapons, preparing by force to drive the plaintiffs from and dispossess them of said premises, and the use thereof. “And the plaintiffs further allege, that the said defendants have threatened to dispossess the said plaintiffs, and take possession of said property and premises, and deprive said plaintiffs of the use thereof; ” and are making preparations and using violent and improper means to drive plaintiffs from said premises, and the enjoyment thereof.

7. That plaintiffs are in the peaceable and quiet possession of said property, and are in the possession of a large number of teams and carriages, &c., for transporting goods, &c., from said warehouse and wharf to Los Angeles, and that unless defendants are restrained from executing their threats, the plaintiffs will be ruined in their said business, and their said property will be sacrificed and destroyed, and they will thereby be ruined and impoverished.

The plaintiffs in conclusion pray for an injunction in the usual form in such cases, and that the same may be made perpetual.

On the tenth of October, 1859, an injunction was granted by the District Judge, and served. Thereupon defendants moved to dissolve the injunction on affidavits, which was opposed by plaintiffs on the complaint and affidavits. On the first day of December, 1859, the motion came on to be heard, and the injunction was dissolved; plaintiffs excepting.

The affidavits used on behalf of defendants were to the effect, that in a certain cause of forcible and unlawful detainer, before Charles E. Hale, Esq., a Justice of the Peace for Los Angeles township, in which Rubio was plaintiff and Banning was defendant, a writ of restitution was issued by the Justice on the sixth day of October, 1859, for the recovery and delivery to Rubio of certain premises, of which the property in controversy forms part; that said writ of restitution was delivered to the Sheriff of Los Angeles county on the the day last aforesaid; who, by virtue thereof, proceeded to take possession of said premises and deliver the same to Rubio, and that the premises were peaceably surrendered by said Banning to the Sheriff “ on behalf of said Rubio,” and Banning deposed that no part of said property had ever been delivered by him to said plaintiffs.

On the part of the plaintiffs, the affidavits of Tomlinson, D. Campbell, J. G. Campbell, A. W. Timms and George W. Gift, used in opposing said motion, contain, in substance, statements supporting the allegations of the complaint. On the eighteenth of October, 1859, the defendants demurred that said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The Court below sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal from the order dissolving the injunction, and from the final judgment.