General

JAMES et al. v. WILD GOOSE MINING & TRADING CO.

2 Alaska Fed. 475143 F. 868·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1906

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

143 F. 868 JAMES et al. v. WILD GOOSE MINING & TRADING CO. No. 1,228. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 5, 1906. Dudley Du Bose, G. J. Lomen, and Charles E. Naylor, for appellants. Chas. Page, Edward J. McCutchen, and Samuel Knight, for appellee. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — ROSS, Circuit Judge.] ROSS, Circuit Judge. We do not think it well to decide the important water-right question argued by counsel for the appellants on this appeal from an order denying them a preliminary injunction, the application for which was heard upon affidavits — especially as it appears that the only use of the waters in question by the appellants with which it can be claimed that the appellee interfered was by virtue of an appropriation of waters of Ophir creek, Alaska; which appropriation, it seems, was subsequent in point of time to the appropriation of the waters of the same creek under which the appellee claims. The order of the court below refusing a preliminary injunction is affirmed.