The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1854-11-13
Opinion of Court on Motion to Dissolue L.
junction upon Ansuer. "" 's.'.'

Junction upon AnSreT. ''
The complaint in this action charges, in sub
stance, among other matters which do not
aecn material to proper understanding of the
case, that the cOmplainants, by virtue of lease,
are in the rightful possession of a"certaiR par
Gel of land in the town OF ST. Paul. bounded
upon ONO side by the Mississippi river, and are
the owners in fee of another parcel of land adj
Joining the above, both of which titles are de-
rived from the defendant, Dayton that there
is a stream of water, called " Mill Creek - rtaal
ming through both of said parcels OF land to
the Mississippi river that the plaintiffs have
built a saw-mill on said last mentioned parcel
of land whereby it has become necessary in
order to carry on the business of their mill,
that they should have the. free use and enjoy
mcnt of the whole of the above mentioned
leased premises that at divers times between
the l4th day of July, 1853, and the date of
the complaint, the defendant Sanford entered
upon the leased premises "for the purpose of
hauling and floating mill logs on and across
said premises, and did so haul and float logs on
and across the same, and placed, left and per-
mitted large quantity of logs and lumber to
remain upon said premises during the whole of
the time from the 14tf day of July, 1853 to
the present time, and thereby annoyed, OBJ
structed, Obtruded and interiered with the free
use and enjoyment of the said property by the
plaintiffs, that two actions of trespass were in
stituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant,
Sanford, for some of the acts complained OF,
and trials were had in both cases, in which the
title to said premises was put in issue, and that
the defendant Sanford was found guilty by this
court of entering upon the premises, as charged
by the plaintiffs. .s' '@
The complaint further charges that since tic
above decisions, the said defendant Sanford
:" has been in the daily habit of entering upon
said premises and hauling mill logs thereon and
across the same, and kis refused, though often
requested soto do by the plaintiffs, to desist
and refrain from said acts" &C., but has float
ed logs upo1 said stream, and blocked up AMI
stopped the passage of the same thereby, and
has made arrangements to float over said pre-
misses and mp said creek about one nillicn feet
of logs, &c that the plaintiffs cannot carry OH
elusive use of said leased premises and stream;
that the prosecution Of civil actions would be
an inadequate remedy and lead to ruinous null
| tiplicity of suits and that they have no REM
edy but by Injunction without which the injury
! to them will be irrrparable. .--'.-..
The defendants in their answer admit the
making of the lease and decd by Dayton, and
that the two parcels of land arc adjoining but
/ they deny that the leased premises border upon
or are bounded by the Mississippi river. They
also admit that said stream of water runs
through both parcels of land /; but they claim
to own the premises at the mouth of said
stream, and they deny that they are covered
by said lease they also admit the building of
a steam saw-mill by the plaintiffs on said pre-
misses, conveyed to them by deed from Dayton
The defendant Sanford denies " that on or
about the l4th day of July, 1883 and on d.
vers other days between that day and the COM
menccment of this action, or at any other time
or times, he broke and entered upon said close
described in the lease for the urpose of haul
ing and floating mill logs on and across said
premises; or that he did so haul and float mill
logs on and across the same or that he placed
and permitted and left a large quantity of logs
and lumber, or any quantity whatever, to re-
main upon said premises at or during the time
stated in the complaint; )" and denies that he
WIS thereby even "annOyed, INSTRUCTED or III
terfered in any manner with the just or legal
rights of the plaintiffs, or with their rightful
use and enjoyment of the said premises accor-
ding to the true intent, meaning and tenor of
said lease.
The defendants also admit the bringing of
the TWO dctlOIS ny the pialntlliS against The
defendants; but they say that the first action
was disposed of upon question of practice
and pleading, and that the merits of the action
were not heard and that in the second action
they were unable to put in their defense on &C
count of the insufficency of the pleading, and
that they have taken and perfected an appeal
to the Supreme Court: that the action is still
pending, and that it has not been tried upon
its merits
The defendant, Sanford, denies " that he has
been in the daily habit of entering upon said
premises, described in the lease and of hauling
mill logs thereon and across the same, and de-
MICS that he has in any manner violated or in
terfered,with the rights of the plaintiffs under
the said lease, in or upon the premises described
in the lease, in any manner as stated in the
complaint, save and except by occasionally
walking and going over and across the same
without doing any injury or damage what
ever"
The answer admits the running of logs up
said creek for the purpose of saving at the
defendants saw mill, and claims the right