Lindeberg

Lindeberg v. Doverspike

Good Law
141 F. 59·2 Alaska Fed. 452·72 C.C.A. 69·1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3997
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 2, 1905No. 1,174California616 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The appellants were copartners in the business of furnishing water to the city of Nome, Alaska, and they brought a suit against the appellees to enjoin them from discharging mud, dirt, tailings, and impure water into the waters which were the source of supply of the appellants’ water works. The appellees answered the complaint, the appellants replied, and upon the issues so made testimony was taken, upon which the court entered a decree in which it was recited, among other things, that the opinion of the court, made and filed in writing, fully sets forth the facts and conclusions of law upon which the decree was based, and that the appellants were not entitled to an injunction as prayed for, and that the suit be dismissed, at the appellants’ costs.

The assignments of error relied upon on the appeal are that the court made and entered a final decree without filing a written decision stating the facts found and the conclusions of law separately, and in failing to file a decision in writing stating the facts found and the conclusions of law. The appellants base their assignments of error upon the provisions of section 209 of the Code of Civil Procedure (part 4 o'f Carter’s Annotated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.