Wilson v. Rockwell

Citation29 F. 674
PartiesWILSON and others v. ROCKWELL and others.
Decision Date15 December 1886
CourtUnited States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado

Hugh Butler, for complainants.

L. C. Rockwell, per se, for defendants.

BREWER, J.

The facts stated in the bill give complainants a clear right to a preliminary injunction. It is immaterial whether the legal title be in complainants or the Woodmass of Alston Company. The dispute between them does not concern trespassers. Both parties are in court, the company being made defendant. The full equitable title ownership is with complainants, and a court of equity will protect the owners, as against trespassers, although the location of the legal title has not been finally determined. The allegations of the bill are met by affidavits and other testimony on the part of the defendants. The truth is in doubt. I shall not attempt to determine it now, nor comment, on the testimony, further than to say that Gwynn, the vendor to complainants, and Gwynn, the witness, do not speak in the same way. A little cross-examination may be helpful. The case made by the bill is shaken, but by testimony, some of which at least is open to strong suspicions.

A preliminary injunction will be granted as prayed for, upon the giving of a bond in the sum of $10,000, with two sureties, to be approved by the clerk of this court, conditioned to pay all damages caused by this order, if the same shall finally be set aside. The complainants must also proceed, with all reasonable speed, to have the legal title determined.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rutherford v. The Lucerne Canal and Power Company
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1904
    ... ... sufficient. ( Schneider v. Brown (Cal.), 24 P. 715; ... Cramer v. Kester, 36 id., 415; Wilson v ... Bodwell, 29 F. 674; 2 Beach Inj., Sec. 1142.) ... If the ... possession of defendant is a mere interruption of the prior ... ...
  • Utah, N. & C.R. Co. v. Utah & C. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • July 22, 1901
    ...defendant has been reversed, and a new trial ordered, the reason which originally existed for the injunction continues.' See Wilson v. Rockwell (C.C.) 29 F. 674; Pac. R. Co. v. City of Spokane (C.C.) 52 F. 428; St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. v. Montana Min. Co. (C.C.) 58 F. 129; Buskirk v. King......
  • Woodruff v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1895
    ... ... Justice Brewer in a case involving the same parties and ... subject-matter. 26 F. 218, supra. Again, in Wilson v ... Rockwell, 29 F. 674, Mr. Justice Brewer announces as a ... correct principle that: "A party showing an equitable ... title to realty will ... ...
  • Norton v. Elwert
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1895
    ... ... that it cannot be adequately compensated in damages, or ... cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard ( ... Wilson v. City of Mineral Point, 39 Wis. 160). The ... right of a court of equity, in cases of irreparable injury, ... to interpose, and by ... at law, is no longer seriously controverted ( Clayton v ... Shoemaker, 67 Md. 216, 9 A. 635; Wilson v ... Rockwell, 29 F. 674; Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S ... 537, 5 Sup.Ct. 565; 1 Spel.Extr.Rel. § 367); and the refusal ... of a court to award a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT