Nelson v. O'Neal

Montana Supreme Court

Nelson v. O'Neal

1 Mont. 284

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1 Mont. 284 (Nelson v. O'Neal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. O'Neal, 1 Mont. 284 (Mo. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Knowles, J.

This is an action of trespass, brought by appellant for damages for an alleged entry upon his mining ground, and erecting a dam thereon, which stopped tailings upon the said mining ground, and alleging that the respondents threatened to continue the injury, and to erect the said dam higher, and asking for an injunction to restrain them from the commission of these wrongs. Respondents deny that appellant owns the mining ground described; admit erecting the dam and the intention to erect it higher, and aver that the dam is on their own ground, and that the same was erected to prevent appellant from running their tailings down upon their ground.

The jury, in their special findings, determine that appellant does not own the mining ground upon which the dam was erected; that respondents had not interfered with the mining rights of appellant by the erection of the dam in question. They also find that the erection of the dam higher will interfere with the profitable mining operations of appellant. Upon this last finding, appellant asked an injunction of the court below, which was refused. This is assigned as error.

It appears, from the complaint of appellant, that the tailings which the dam of respondents prevented from flowing [286]*286down, were tailings from appellant’s mining ground. The granting or refusing an injunction was discretionary with the court below. We do not think it was an abuse of discretion in refusing an injunction to restrain the respondents from building a dam on their own ground, so as to prevent appellant from committing an injury upon the same. Appellant would be entitled to the free use of the channel of the creek, to allow the water which came down from above to flow away from his mining ground, but he had no right to fill the channel of the creek with tailings and debris, and let it flow down upon respondent’s ground.

Order of the court below affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Knowles, J.

This is an action of trespass, brought by appellant for damages for an alleged entry upon his mining ground, and erecting a dam thereon, which stopped tailings upon the said mining ground, and alleging that the respondents threatened to continue the injury, and to erect the said dam higher, and asking for an injunction to restrain them from the commission of these wrongs. Respondents deny that appellant owns the mining ground described; admit erecting the dam and the intention to erect it higher, and aver that the dam is on their own ground, and that the same was erected to prevent appellant from running their tailings down upon their ground.

The jury, in their special findings, determine that appellant does not own the mining ground upon which the dam was erected; that respondents had not interfered with the mining rights of appellant by the erection of the dam in question. They also find that the erection of the dam higher will interfere with the profitable mining operations of appellant. Upon this last finding, appellant asked an injunction of the court below, which was refused. This is assigned as error.

It appears, from the complaint of appellant, that the tailings which the dam of respondents prevented from flowing [286]*286down, were tailings from appellant’s mining ground. The granting or refusing an injunction was discretionary with the court below. We do not think it was an abuse of discretion in refusing an injunction to restrain the respondents from building a dam on their own ground, so as to prevent appellant from committing an injury upon the same. Appellant would be entitled to the free use of the channel of the creek, to allow the water which came down from above to flow away from his mining ground, but he had no right to fill the channel of the creek with tailings and debris, and let it flow down upon respondent’s ground.

Order of the court below affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mont. 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-oneal-mont-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack