Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California/Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.

Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.

144 F. 160
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
DecidedMarch 19, 1906
DocketNo. 13,858
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 F. 160 (Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 144 F. 160 (circtndca 1906).

Opinion

MORROW, Circuit Judge.

The first of the above-entitled actions is a suit in equity brought by the complainant, the Southern Pacific Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Kentucky, against the Western Pacific Railway Company, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Calif ornia, and the American Dredging Company, a corporation also organized and doing business under the laws of the state of California, to restrain the defendants from filling up with sand, mud, or other material, and from occupying a certain described area of submerged and partly submerged tide lands of the Bay of San Francisco on the Oakland water front, claimed to be owned in fee simple by the complainant, and from the láying of railroad tracks and the construction of a railroad upon said lands, and from erecting wharves, piers, buildings, or constructions of' any kind upon said lands. It is alleged that the acts of the defendants will cause complainant irreparable injury. Upon the verified bill of complaint, supported by affidavits, the court issued an order to show cause why an injunction pendente lite should not be granted as prayed for in the bill of complaint, and pending the hearing of the order to show cause, upon affidavits showing that unless the defendants were immediately restrained from the acts mentioned in the bill of complaint the complainant would suffer irreparable damage, a temporary restraining order was made part of the order to show cause. Before a hearing was had upon the order to show cause, the defendant Western Pacific Railway Company filed its cross-bill against the Southern Pacific Company, alleging that the Southern Pacific Company had no right, title, or interest in or to any of the submerged tide lands which the Western Pacific Railway Company and American Dredging Company were engaged in filling up as described in the bill of complaint, or to that being occupied by the Western Pacific Railway Company; that the possession and occupation of such lands by the Western Pacific Railway Company was in accordance with certain provisions of the laws of the state and the charter of the city of Oakland. It was further alleged by the Western Pacific Company, that the Southern Pacific Company had commenced the construction of a trestle upon lands occupied by said Southern Pacific Company, and was engaged in extending said trestle in the direction of the lands occupied by the Western Pacific Railway Company, and that the officers and agents of the said Southern Pacific Company who were in charge of the construction of said trestle gave out and declared that it was the intention of the said Southern Pacific Company to extend said

[0]*0

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

Related

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schnackenberg
90 F.2d 175 (Seventh Circuit, 1937)
The Teviotdale
166 F. 481 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 F. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-pac-co-v-western-pac-ry-co-circtndca-1906.