Maehl v. Crow Creek Consol. Mining Co.

Citations

• 5 Alaska 547

Syllabus

<p>1. Injunction <@=»13—Mines and Minerals—Substantial Injury.</p> <p>Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin defendant from dumping tailings on their placer claims, which lie along the creek below defendant’s workings. Plaintiffs’ claims are shown to be nonproducing and speculative, and of doubtful, if any, value. Defendant’s claims are producing and have long employed a large number of miners at work. The high waters of the creek carry glacial débris, sand, and gravel, in large quantities, and it is not shown that the workings of defendant produce any appreciable additions to the natural deposits of this débris on the plaintiffs’ claims. Held, the rule of comparative injury ought to be followed, and the plaintiffs relegated to their action at law for damages if any. Injunction denied.</p> <p>2. Injunction <§=»13—Equity.</p> <p>No one has an absolute and unqualified right to an injunction. Such an application appeals to the conscience of the chancellor, to the exercise of a wise and sound discretion, and should be granted or withheld according to the equities of the case as made to appear from the records. Where it is sought to enjoin a lawful business, the court should give due consideration to the comparative injury which will result from the granting or the refusal thereof.</p> <p><@E»See same topic*, & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>3. Injunction <©=>113—Laches—Remedy at Law.</p> <p>. On application for an injunction the court should consider the necessity or importance of the right claimed,' as well as the injury likely to be caused by its issue; and where it appears that there was a lack of diligence in seeking the aid of the court of equity to arrest the detrimental operations, an injunction will be refused, and the party relegated to his remedy at law for damages.'</p> <p>i@=»See same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>