Hobbs v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co.
California Supreme Court
In this case there are two appeals—one by the defendant from an order of the Superior Court of the county of Sacramento, refusing to dissolve an injunction, and one by the plaintiff from a portion of the same order modifying the injunction. By a stipulation of parties, both appeals were heard together, and upon the same record. The defendant was a mining corporation, owning and working mines in the county of Sacramento by the hydraulic process.
Read the full summary
In this case there are two appeals—one by the defendant from an order of the Superior Court of the county of Sacramento, refusing to dissolve an injunction, and one by the plaintiff from a portion of the same order modifying the injunction. By a stipulation of parties, both appeals were heard together, and upon the same record. The defendant was a mining corporation, owning and working mines in the county of Sacramento by the hydraulic process. The plaintiff owned a tract of land in the county of Sacramento. The suit was for an injunction to restrain the defendant from discharging or dumping…
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
-In this case there are two appeals: one from an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, and another from an order modifying the injunction.
Upon affidavits tending to show that the injunction had been issued without notice to the defendant, and that it was an injunction which suspended the general and ordinary business of the defendant, as a corporation, the court denied the motion to dissolve, and that ruling is assigned as error.
The injunction was issued to restrain the defendant from continuing to dump its mining debris, tailings, and other refuse matter from its mines,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Peck v. VandenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Richardson v. KierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Robinson v. Black Diamond Coal Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Logan v. DriscollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by20 opinions
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. GodfreyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Chessman v. HaleMontana Supreme Court · 1905
- Laam v. McLarenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Salstrom v. Orleans Bar Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v. Midwest Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.