Suit by stockholder to restrain payment of license, see "Equity."
Modifying decree of, see "Equity."
Mandatory, to protect Indian lands, see "Indians."
To restrain collection of judgments, see "Judgments."
Equity aids the vigilant, see "Mines and Minerals."
Against vexatious and continuous nuisances, see "Nuisances."
1. Preliminary injunction-Review on appeal.
An order granting a preliminary injunction, which merely
keeps the property in litigation in statu quo, will not be dis-
turbed on appeal, unless it clearly appears that there has been
an abuse of discretion.
-Shea v. Nilima, 133 Fed. 209, 66 C. C. A. 263.
2. Not granted where remedy at law is adequate.
Pending the action by plaintiff to recover possession of a town
lot, and after verdict in his favor, defendant forcibly removed
and carried away a dwelling house from the lot. Held, the
court had no jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction to
compel defendant to restore the house, since plaintiff had a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy at law for damages.
-Karl v. Pilkington......
The town council of Valdez elected Lynch poundmaster.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin him from performing his duty under
the town ordinances relating to dogs, upon the ground that cer-
tain members of the town council who elected him were not
duly and legally elected to the council. Held that, since the
statutes of Alaska provide a plain, speedy, and adequate reme-
dy at law for testing title to an office, equity will not assume
to do so on a collateral attack..
3. General power to grant.
The power of courts to grant injunctions is among their ex-
traordinary powers, and should be cautiously and sparingly ex-
ercised. It is only where an action at law will furnish no ade-
quate relief that equity will, on account of the injury being ir-
reparable at law, administer the remedy by injunction.
-Lindeberg v. Doverspike................
4. To prevent vexatious and continuous nuisance.
An injunction against a private nuisance will be generally
granted only where there is a strong and mischievous case of
pressing necessity, and not because of a trifling discomfort or in-
convenience suffered by the complainant.
-Lindeberg v. Doverspike......
Plaintiffs own and operate the Moonlight springs water supply
for the town of Nome. Defendants, who own a mining claim in
the same watershed above the springs, permitted water discol-
ored by mining to enter the springs, but their sluicing occupied
but a few days, and had fully ceased before the application for
the injunction against its continuance. Held that, as the nuisance
was not continuous, and had ceased prior to the application, the
injunction ought not to issue. Application denied.
-Lindeberg v. Doverspike......
Where a defendant continues to trespass upon the shore lands
in front of plaintiff's property after judgment at law against
him, the very smallness of the actual damage to plaintiff, to-
gether with the continued nuisance created by defendant's
structures upon the highway, destroying plaintiff's ingress and
egress, constitute an irreparable injury, which equity alone
can remedy.
By irreparable injury is not meant such injury as is beyond
the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation or
damages, but that species of injury, whether great or small,
that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand, or inflicted
on the other, and which, because it is so large on the one hand,
or so small on the other, or is of such constant or frequent recur-
rence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in
a court of law.
5. To restrain erection of wharf on highway.
Injunction will issue to prevent the building of wharves or
warehouses by private persons on the public highway or navi-
gable streams in front of plaintiff's property, where he shows a
special injury by closing his free access or increased danger from
fire.
6. Railroad right of way without condemnation.
The general rule is that an injunction will issue to prevent a
railroad company from taking possession of a right of way
and constructing its road over private property without first
making payment to the owner for the property taken.
-Steele v. Tanana Mines Ry. Co......
7. Building ditch across mine without consent.
Where a ditch or flume is built across a prior valid mining
location without the consent of the mine owner, and without
condemnation proceedings, an injunction will be denied to pre-
vent the mine owner from working his claim fully, though by
doing so he may destroy the ditch or flume.
-Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobson..
8. Where title in dispute and doubtful.
An injunction will not issue to restrain a railroad company
from completing its bridge across a nonnavigable slough claimed
by plaintiff as a part of his placer mining location, where the title
to the land is in dispute and is doubtful, and where, in addition,
no injury is shown to the claim.
-Steele v. Tanana Mines Ry. Co......
9. Breach and suit on injunction bond.
The condition of an injunction bond is broken by a dissolution
of the injunction. The right of action accrues at once. The right
is not stayed by an appeal from the final judgment.
On trial on the merits, judgment of dismissal was entered.
An injunction pendente lite was thereby dissolved. Plaintiff ap-
pealed and gave supersedeas bond. The defendants brought suit
on the injunction bond, and a plea in abatement was tendered
in the answer setting up the judgment, the appeal, and the giv-
ing of the supersedeas bond. On demurrer to the plea it was
hold, that an appeal and supersedeas bond do not operate to
abate a suit on an injunction bond, or to destroy the right upon
which it is founded, and the demurrer to the plea was sustained.
-Elliott v. Kuzek.......
...587
Guardian of, see "Guardian and Ward."
Abandonment of public lands by, see "Public Lands.”
1. Guardian for insane person without jury trial.
The provisions of chapter 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
providing for the appointment of guardians for insane persons
and their estates, are neither amended, modified, nor repealed
by the act of January 27, 1905 (Chapter 277, 34 Stat. 616), pro-
viding that no person shall be adjudged insane or committed as
such to the asylum without jury trial.
-White's Guardian v. Martin......
2. Power to appoint guardian for insane.
The probate court has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of
the property of a resident real estate owner who becomes insane
and wanders away.
-White's Guardian v. Martin.....
3. Residence of insane wanderer.
One "resides" in a place when he lives or dwells there; when
it is his settled abode; his habitation; his home. There must be
a settled, fixed abode, an intention to remain permanently, at
least for a time, for business or other purposes, to constitute a
"residence," within the legal meaning of the term.
-White's Guardian v. Martin......
4. No presumption of abandonment against insane.
White was a resident of Fairbanks, where he owned a home
and other real and personal estate. He became insane, and
wandered away. Held, that there was no presumption of law,
from the admitted fact of his absence, that he intended to aban-
don his possessory claims on the public lands.
-White's Guardian v. Martin....
5. Jurisdiction in collateral proceeding against insane.
The defendant claimed the property of one White, who be-
came insane and wandered away. Held, that they would not
be heard in a collateral proceeding to challenge the jurisdiction
of the probate court to appoint a guardian for the insane man's
property, since they are adverse claimants, and do not appear
in his interest.
-White's Guardian v. Martin....
6. Presumptions will support possessory rights of insane.
The court will not admit evidence to prove or presume an in-
tent on the part of an admittedly insane settler on the public
domain to abandon his possessory rights, though the fact of his
absence be admitted. When the fact of his insanity is estab-
lished, the court will, to protect his estate from forfeiture from
an alleged abandonment, conclusively presume that his un-
explained absence therefrom results from his insane delusions,
and not from any sane or rational intent.
-White's Guardian v. Martin..
Review of, see "Appeal and Error."
In criminal cases, see "Homicide."
Exceptions to instructions, see "New Trial."
Admitted facts may be stated in, see "Trial."
Do not apply to Alaska, see "Alaska."
Not necessary to charge in statutory offense, see "Criminal Law."
Not admitted against insane person, see "Insane Persons"
Petition in, must state facts, see "Pleadings."
In adverse suits for patent, see "Public Lands."
Deed made while suffering from, see "Fraud.”
Contempt of, appellate court, see "Contempt."
Bill of exceptions settled by successor, see "Exceptions.”
1. Succeeding judge may vacate or modify judgment.
Motion for a new trial was denied and judgment entered.
Thereafter the trial judge was succeeded on the bench by an-
other judge. A motion was made before the new judge to va-
cate or modify the former judgment for error. Held, the suc-
cessor had jurisdiction to vacate or modify the judgment.
-Logan v. Columbia Canning Co.....
|