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...
5 thereby violated the spirit of the injunction (Tr. 94). Thereafter, on November 21, 1916, Honorable William H. Hunt, sitting in the place of Honorable William QC. Van Fleet, heard the statements of the respective parties on the motion and ordered plaintiff to cease operations under defendant’s surface until Judge Van Fleet could hear and decide the matter (Tr. 99-100). On December 22, 1916, Judge Van Fleet, after conferring with Judge Hunt, as stated in the Memorandum Opinion (Tr. 89), denied the motion but granted the defendant, if it so desired, a cross-injunction restraining the plaintiff pending the suit from further prosecuting mining operations extralaterally, on the disputed vein, upon defendant giving a bond in the sum of $30,000 to indemnify plaintiff against any damages suffered by plaintiff from such restraint (Tr. 90). Defendant has not seen fit to avail itself of this privilege but has taken this appeal from the order denying the motion.: ——__— ARGUMENT. THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS APPEAL. Defendant appears to believe that the injunctive order against it should be dissqlved, because plaintiff continued its mining operations after defendant was restrained. We are certain that no such result will follow, because the dissolution of an injunction is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and it.