
    Joseph Friedlander, complainant-appellant, v. Louis Grand, defendant-respondent.
    [Submitted May 26th, 1934.
    Decided September 27th, 1934.]
    
      The vice-chancellor delivered the following opinion:
    “The legal remedy of complainant, in case he is wrongfully evicted by his landlord, is an action for damages or ejectment. Miller v. Kulschinski, 92 N. J. Law 97; 36 C. J. 70. But he may have an injunction against interference of his possession by the landlord if the circumstances of the case disclose that the relief at law is inadequate and that the injury will be irreparable. McGann v. LaBrecque Co., 90 N. J. Eq. 526; 91 N. J. Eq. 307.
    
    “Complainant occupies part of a small store in Jersey City and it is the possession of this store which he desires protected. He does not show that there are no other stores in the neighborhood available or that he cannot move his business to another store without serious loss. The order to show cause will therefore be discharged, with costs.”
    
      Mr. Marry Kay, for the appellant.
    No. appear anee, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow in the court of chancery.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.  