Twenty-One Mining Co. v. Original Sixteen To One Mine, Inc.

(after stating the facts as above). The appellant contends that the function of the injunction was to maintain the status quo pending the litigation, and that it bound the appellee who applied for it as much as it did the appellant against whom it was directed, citing, among other authorities and text-writers, 3 Lindley on Mines, p. 2193, where it is said:

To that text are cited Vanzandt v. Argentine Min. Co. (C. C.) 48 Fed. 770 ; Silver Peak Mines v. Planchett (C. C.) 93 Fed. 76 ; Mowrer v. State, 107 Ind. 539 , 8 N. E. 561 ; Haight v. Eucia, 36 Wis. 355 . In the Vanzandt Case the bill alleged that the plaintiff owned a certain mine then in the possession of the defendant. On the plaintiff’s application the defendant was enjoined from mining on the claim pending the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff ejected the defendant and took possession of the mine. Upon the defendant’s application, an order was made requiring the plaintiff to restore possession. Thereupon the defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to show'cause why he should not be punished for contempt in violating his own injunction. The court, Judges McCrary and Plallett sitting, said:

In Haight v. Lucia each…