TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wood v. Millspaugh

Clinton M. Wood v. John W. Millspaugh, Receiver, &c.

Wood v. Millspaugh, 15 Kan. 14 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1875
Judges
Valentine
Citations
15 Kan. 14
Headnotes
Injunction — Temporary; Power and Discretion of District Courts. The district courts and the judges thereof have considerable discretion in allowing and disallowing, and in sustaining or vacating, temporary injunctions; and therefore, when the reasons urged for and against a temporary injunction are very nearly equally balanced; the supreme court will not reverse an order of the district court or a judge thereof vacating a temporary injunction.
Summary
Error from Cowley District Court. The district judge, at chambers, in July 1873, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Wood, as plaintiff, and afterward on motion vacated such order; and from this last ruling Wood appeals, and brings the record here on error, for review.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Valentine

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Valentine, J.:

At the commencement of this action a temporary injunction was allowed to restrain the defendant ■ Millspaugh from erecting a mill-dam on Walnut river, in Cowley county, so as to cause the water thereof to flow back *15 and into Dutch creek, a tributary of Walnut river, and thereby to overflow the plaintiff’s land. Afterward the judge of the court below, at chambers, vacated the order of injunction; and the plaintiff, excepting thereto, brings the case to this court for review. The reasons urged for and against the temporary injunction are very nearly equally balanced, and therefore, as district courts, and the judges thereof, have considerable discretion in allowing or disallowing, and in sustaining or vacating temporary injunctions, we must sustain the order of the judge below vacating the temporary injunction allowed in this case. Even if the reasons in favor of sustaining a temporary injunction should slightly preponderate over those against it, still that would not be sufficient to authorize this court to reverse an order of the district court or a judge thereof vacating a temporary injunction, unless the preponderance should be so great that this court could say that the district court or judge had abused its or his discretion.

The order of the judge of the court below is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 11886–1887: 11890–1891: 11930–1931: 11962–1963: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Borgen v. Wiglesworth369 P.2d 360 (Kan. 1962)
  2. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hamilton288 P. 560 (Kan. 1930)
  3. Johns v. Schmidt32 Kan. 383 (1884)
  4. Johnson v. Commissioners34 Kan. 670 (1886)
  5. Van Natta-Lynds Drug Co. v. Gerson43 Kan. 660 (1890)

Most recent

  1. Borgen v. Wiglesworth369 P.2d 360 (Kan. 1962)
  2. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hamilton288 P. 560 (Kan. 1930)
  3. Van Natta-Lynds Drug Co. v. Gerson43 Kan. 660 (1890)
  4. Johnson v. Commissioners34 Kan. 670 (1886)
  5. Johns v. Schmidt32 Kan. 383 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list