Twenty-One Mining Co. v. Original Sixteen To One Mine, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Wm. C. Van Fleet, Judge. Bill by the Twenty-One Mining Company, a corporation, against the Original Sixteen to One Mine, Incorporated. Complainant was granted a temporary injunction, and defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, although a cross-injunction was granted on condition that defendant furnish an indemnifying bond, and defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Wm. C. Van Fleet, Judge. Bill by the Twenty-One Mining Company, a corporation, against the Original Sixteen to One Mine, Incorporated. Complainant was granted a temporary injunction, and defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, although a cross-injunction was granted on condition that defendant furnish an indemnifying bond, and defendant appeals. Tbe appellant and tbe appellee own adjoining lode mining claims. Tbe ap-pellee was mining on a vein witbin tbe vertical plane lines…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The appellant contends that the function of the injunction was to maintain the status quo pending the litigation, and that it bound the appellee who applied for it as much as it did the appellant against whom it was directed, citing, among other authorities and text-writers, 3 Lindley on Mines, p. 2193, where it is said:
*108“It is a gross abuse of tbe process of tbe court for tbe complainant to disregard bis own injunction, having, by means thereof, tied tbe bands of bis adversary. Tbis is particularly true where tbe purpose of tbe injunction is to maintain tbe…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Haight v. LuciaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Vogel v. WarsingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
- Johnson v. Hall & BrotherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Maloney v. KingMontana Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Ringling v. MahurinMontana Supreme Court · 1921
- Wilson & Co. v. Best Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. LawrenceDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1927