atkins case vuhitchurch versus hide August the plaintiff through several mean  assignment be in possession of a right original in the city of London of  supply Southwark with water pray a injunction to restrain the defendant from  encroach on this right by raise engine lie pipe c and to have it establish in  this court the defendant demurrer to the bill for that the plaintiff ought  first to have establish his right at law Lord Hardwicke allow the demurrer as  the chance there be of the plaintiff right fall to the around at law be a  strong reason for it see Lord Teynham v Herbert post this be a bill bring find  on the right of the mayor commonalty c of the city of London for supply that e  borough of Southwark and the adjacent place with water and by virtue of  several mean assignment the plaintiff be now in possession of this right  exclusive of all other and pray a injunction against the defendant to restrain  he from encroach upon this right by raise engine lie pipe and break up the  ground c and to have it establish in this court against the defendant and all  other the defendant demurrer and for cause of demurrer show that the plaintiff  ought first to have establish his right at law Lord chancellor this bill be  bring upon a exceed unfavourable case for it be in some measure set up a  monopoly and such a kind of right as be claim in no other part of this town  neither by the yorkbuilding company or the new atkins er p riverhead or even  by the city of London itself in any part of it nor can any person prescribe to  break up street without a act of parliament the supply the borough of  Southwark with water be of great consequence to the public now it be say a man  may bring a bill if he have a legal title to establish his right without first  try it at law as in general case of fishery in river c where there be no  general prescription the counsel for the plaintiff have cite case of this kind  and there may have be many more mention as for instance in the case of new  invention upon the act that fix the sole property of book in the author for it  be under a common general right upon the statute so likewise under the act of  parliament for vest the sole property in print of new invention see anon Ves  bell v walker bro Charles Rep carnan v bowl bro Charles Rep but I apprehend  when these act be first pass the court do not immediate grant a injunction to  restrain all other person till the letter patent have be first establish at  law see anon vern east India company v Sandys vern hill v university of Oxford  vern anon Ves blanchard v hill post atkins but in the present case it will run  to a prodigious expense to enter into a long examination arise upon  consequential and collateral matter when probable even the very foundation for  the plaintiff right may fail which will make the expensive proceed here entire  fruitless when one trial at law may possible quiet the question as to the  objection that the plaintiff may have no remedy at law there be but little  weight in it for if he have a sole exclusive right no doubt but he have a  remedy and if any person infringe that right and he can bring a common action  of trespass he may have a action of the case for the law will not permit a man  who have a right to be without a remedy as this be a case of great consequence  to the public I will allow the demurrer even if there be no other reason but  the risk the party may run in go into a very large expense and long  examination here to no purpose and the chance there be of the plaintiff right  fall to the ground at law be a very strong reason for it the case cite for the  plaintiff be bush versus western Prec in Chan the duke of Dorset versus  sergeant girdler id and the mayor of York versus sir Lionel Pilkington may see  t Atkins for the defendant in support of the demurrer be cite the case of  powlet versus Ingres vern Reynolds versus hind may in the exchequer Reg lib b  fol