## Facts

- William A. Wheelock owned several unoccupied lots in upper New York City.
- Michael Noonan, a stranger to Wheelock, obtained gratuitous permission to place “a few rocks” on the lots for a short period, with an assurance he would remove them in the spring.
- The permission was not contractual consideration and functioned as a revocable license that, by its terms, expired in the spring.
- During the winter, while Wheelock was absent and without his knowledge, Noonan deposited huge quantities of rock on six lots, including pieces ten to fifteen feet long, piled fourteen to eighteen feet high.
- After discovering the deposits in the spring, Wheelock revoked permission, demanded removal, and repeatedly complained that the placement exceeded what he had allowed.
- Noonan promised to remove the rocks but failed to do so, leaving the materials on Wheelock’s land despite repeated demands.
- The trial court found the license did not justify the quantity of rock or the duration of storage, and that after revocation Noonan was a trespasser committing a continuing trespass.
- The trial court entered a decree enjoining Noonan from keeping the rocks on the premises and ordering removal by a fixed date; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity had power to grant a mandatory injunction requiring removal of rocks placed on land under an abused and revoked license.
2. Whether equitable relief was improper because Wheelock allegedly had an adequate remedy at law.
3. Whether the “adequate remedy at law” objection could be considered when it was not specially pleaded as new matter.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the decree.
- The court held that equity could issue a mandatory injunction to end the continuing trespass by requiring removal of the rocks.
- The court concluded the proposed legal alternatives were not adequate because they would leave Wheelock to undertake burdensome removal and sue for damages, or to pursue successive actions while the obstruction remained.
- The court reached the adequacy-of-remedy contention on the merits, reasoning that where the objection appears from the facts alleged, it need not be treated as new matter requiring special pleading.

## Legal Principles

- A gratuitous, time-limited permission to use land is a revocable license, not a contract or property interest, and conduct materially exceeding its terms is unauthorized.
- After revocation of a license and demand for removal, continued occupation by stored materials constitutes a continuing trespass.
- Equity may grant a mandatory injunction to abate a continuing trespass when money damages or other legal remedies are inadequate, including when legal relief would require costly self-help followed by litigation or would result in multiple suits.
- Substantial physical obstructions that materially interfere with an owner’s use and ability to dispose of property support equitable intervention to terminate the wrong in a single proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a mandatory injunction compelling removal of massive rock deposits because the defendant’s conduct exceeded and outlasted a revocable license and, after revocation, amounted to a continuing trespass for which legal remedies were practically insufficient and would not promptly restore the owner’s full use of the land.


Wheelock v. Noonan, 108 N.Y. 179 (1888)