McMonigle v. Behring Dredging Co.
District Court, D. Alaska
This cause comes up at this time upon the order of this court to the defendant to show cause, if any it has, why an injunction should not be issued in the above-entitled action enjoining the defendant and all persons in privity with it from mining upon or extracting gold or gold-bearing gravel from or upon the mining claim described in plaintiff’s complaint during the pendency of this action and until the title to said mining claim can be lawfully adjudicated.
1Opinion of the Court
TUCKER, District Judge.
The affidavits filed by the parties hereto upon said order to show cause are, to say the least, very conflicting; but, in the view of this court, it is not necessary at this time to pass upon the merits of the respective claims made by the plaintiff and the defendant, for, in view of the authorities cited by counsel for plaintiff, upon the showing made by plaintiff, an injunction should issue to preserve the ground in question until the title thereto can be legally settled, especially since the defendant admits, in paragraph 5 of its answer herein, that it intends to,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Buskirk v. KingCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1896
- Martin v. DanzigerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1913