The usual theory upon which the injunction is granted is the inadequacy of the remedy at law. However, the real reason for injunctive relief is the same reason that furnishes a foundation for jurisdiction to decree a specific performance of contracts for the sale of real estate.

The general rule is that the owner of land is entitled to an injunction for the removal of trespassing structures.   The facts that the aggrieved owner suffers little or no damage from the trespass, that the wrongdoer acts in good faith and will be put to disproportionate expense by removal of the trespassing structures, and that neighborly conduct as well as business judgment will require acceptance of compensation in money for the land appropriated, are ordinarily no reasons for denying an injunction.[i]  Moreover, only when there is some estoppel or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or a refusal on his/her part to consent to acts necessary to the removal or abatement which s/he demands will an injunction ordinarily be refused.[ii]

[i] Geragosian v. Union Realty Co., 289 Mass. 104, 193 N.E. 726, 96 A.L.R. 1282 (1935).

[ii]Turner v. Morris, 196 Miss. 297 (Miss. 1944).