Summary
In Buckelew v. Estill, (5 Cal. 108,) the Supreme Court restrained defendant from cutting timber, before the title of the land was settled even by the Land Commissioners.
Summary of this case from Henshaw v. ClarkOpinion
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Marin County.
The action was an application for an injunction to restrain defendants from entering upon the plaintiffs' land and committing waste, by cutting down valuable timber.
COUNSEL:
W. Skidmore, for Appellants.
J. H. Haralson, for Respondent.
No briefs on file.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Bryan, J., concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The Court very properly refused to dissolve the injunction. There are several defendants, and only two have answered. The answer admits the grant through which the complainant claims; the question as to the performance of conditions in the grant can only be made by the grantor, and not by a mere naked trespasser. The question as to boundary is the only one which is to be determined, and until then, it is proper that complainant should be protected against the serious damage of having his trees cut down, especially as his bond will fully protect the defendants for any delay, if it should turn out that they have the right.
Order affirmed.