Colorado Eastern R. v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. On the 15th day of April, 1905, the complainant, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, an Iowa corporation, filed in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado its bill of complaint against the Colorado Eastern Railroad Company, a Colorado corporation, alleging that since the 20th day of November, 1901, the complainant has been the owner of two parcels of land, known as…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. On the 15th day of April, 1905, the complainant, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, an Iowa corporation, filed in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado its bill of complaint against the Colorado Eastern Railroad Company, a Colorado corporation, alleging that since the 20th day of November, 1901, the complainant has been the owner of two parcels of land, known as “Parcel No. 1” and “Parcel x or No. 2,” within the corporate limits of the city of Denver; that it had obtained said…
1Opinion of the CourtPhilips, District Judge
Counsel for appellant has argued this case as if the appeal had been from a final decree making the injunction perpetual. This is a misconception. The case was heard on the bill for a temporary injunction, and the order of the court was only provisional—“until the further order of the court.” The bill was sworn to, and no answer thereto has been filed. The allegations of the bill, therefore, for the purposes of a temporary restraining order, stood presumptively true. Affidavits were submitted by both parties on the hearing. Such affidavits are addressed to the consideration of the court in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. ClarkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- City of Newton v. LevisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Midland Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932
- Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distributing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- Donald W. Pelfresne v. Village of Williams BayCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Schauffler v. Local 1291District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.