Rodgers v. Pitt
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada
Proceedings for contempt against W. G. Pitt, for violating an injunction. This coral, on' 1he 12th day of July, 1898, after a full hearing npon a rule to show cause, granted a temporary injunction, and ordered that the defendants, "and each of them, their agents, servants, and employés, be, and they and each of them are hereby, enjoined pending this suit, and until the further order of the court, from diverting or in any manner using the water of the said Humboldt river so…
Read the full summary
Proceedings for contempt against W. G. Pitt, for violating an injunction. This coral, on' 1he 12th day of July, 1898, after a full hearing npon a rule to show cause, granted a temporary injunction, and ordered that the defendants, "and each of them, their agents, servants, and employés, be, and they and each of them are hereby, enjoined pending this suit, and until the further order of the court, from diverting or in any manner using the water of the said Humboldt river so as in any manner to prevent 3,500 inches thereof, measured under a four-inch pressure, from flowing in the natural bed or…
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
(orally). Erom tlie foregoing facts it will be seen that the defendant Pitt admits a technical violation of the letter of the injunction, but denies any violation of its spirit. He seeks to justify his acts upon the ground that he and the other defendants in the suit have, since the injunction, procured an independent title to a water right not then litigated or considered, which is prior in date to any right of complainant to the waters of the Humboldt river. His contention is that not only the question of Clark’s title to the water must be held in abeyance, but that the defendant, having…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Cartwright's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Ex parte CaseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Baker v. . CordonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co.United States Circuit Court · 1884
- Mahoney v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lustgarten v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
- Tornanses v. MelsingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Rodgers v. PittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904
- Blake v. NesbetDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1905
- Gunnison Irr. Co. v. Peterson.Utah Supreme Court · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.