Search Nevada County Historical Archive
Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
To search for an exact phrase, use "double quotes", but only after trying without quotes. To exclude results with a specific word, add dash before the word. Example: -Word.

Collection: Directories and Documents > Pamphlets

Twenty-One Mining Company vs. Original Sixteen to One Mine Inc. Brief for Appellee (PH 10-7)(02-01-1917) (49 pages)

Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Share this Page - Copy to the Clipboard
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 49  
Go
Loading...
6 is plain that such discretion has not. been abused. The record clearly shows that plaintiff ’s action was not contemptuous and not in violation of the spirit of the injunction. Plaintiff gave notice of its purpose, both to the trial court and to defendant, and, as has been stated, sought the aid of the trial court to secure indemnification before resuming work. Practically, the only question for this court to determine is whether, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff is equally bound by the injunction issued against defendant. While defendant has specified several errors in its assignment (Tr. 115-118), they are obviously designed to cover the one situation raised by the denial of the motion to dissolve the injunction, and they can all be resolved into the one question which is here presented for determination, to wit: Will equity compel plaintiff to cease mining on the vein in dispute (in workings long in its possesSion and which have never been in the possession of defendant), without any indemnification against the damage to be suffered thereby, merely because plaintiff has caused defendant to be restrained, under the Protection of a heavy bond, from mining ore in said von at a point remote from plaintiff's workings ? ee oy oe eel given the protection of a the issuance of i te fice: Semnae Sree nae by mining. Can it be ies se “seiratning u rom because it attempts to fee rauey Hee oleate suffer identical dama by deck Enepere mut &e by reason of cessation of its.