About: Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FErhardt_v._Boaro%2C_113_U.S._537

Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537 (1885), was a suit instituted in equity ancillary to a principal action brought for the possession of a mining claim (Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527 (1885)). The object of the suit was to restrain the commission of waste by the defendants pending the outcome of the main action.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537 (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537 (1885), was a suit instituted in equity ancillary to a principal action brought for the possession of a mining claim (Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527 (1885)). The object of the suit was to restrain the commission of waste by the defendants pending the outcome of the main action. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Erhardt v. Boaro (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
JoinMajority
  • unanimous (en)
ParallelCitations
USPage
USVol
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
  • Erhardt v. Boaro, (en)
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
  • Erhardt v. Boaro (en)
justia
Litigants
  • Erhardt v. Boaro (en)
majority
  • Field (en)
has abstract
  • Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537 (1885), was a suit instituted in equity ancillary to a principal action brought for the possession of a mining claim (Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527 (1885)). The object of the suit was to restrain the commission of waste by the defendants pending the outcome of the main action. It was formerly the doctrine of equity in cases of alleged trespass on land not to restrain the use and enjoyment of the premises by the defendant when the title was in dispute, but to leave the complaining party to his remedy at law. A controversy as to the title was deemed sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. In Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51, which was before Lord Eldon in 1801, he is reported to have said that he remembered being told in early life from the bench "that if the plaintiff filed a bill for an account and an injunction to restrain waste, stating that the defendant claimed by a title adverse to his, he stated himself out of court as to the injunction." It is common practice in cases where irremediable mischief is being done or threatened going to the destruction of the substance of the estate, such as the extracting of ores from a mine or the cutting down of timber or the removal of coal, to issue an injunction though the title to the premises be in litigation. The authority of the court is exercised in such cases, through its preventive writ, to preserve the property from destruction pending legal proceedings for the determination of the title. Jerome v. Ross, 7 Johns. Ch. 315, 332; Le Roy v. Wright, 4 Sawyer 530, 535. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is Wikipage disambiguates of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 54 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software