The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-06-26
INJUNCTION IS DENIED.
COURT HOLDS THAT N. p. n. r. MUST
AWAIT FINAL HEARING.
Ruies That Issuance of Mandatory
Injunction where Defendant Has
offered No Positive Resistance Is
In Violation of the statutes.

In the matter of the application OF the
Northern Pacific Railway for a provision
al Injunction directed to the Columbia *
Puget Sound Railway Company, wherein
the complainant sought TO obtain de-
cree TO compel the defendant to admit
the Seattle & San Francisco Railway to
running rights over the road between
this city and Black River junction. Judge
Hanford yesterday refused to issue the
injunction. The court announces that af-
ter thorough examination of authorities
bearing upon the subject he is convinced
that they unanimously deny the right Of
a court in equity to grant a mandatory
Injunction, giving to complainant the
enjoyment Of rights not previously exer-
cised before "a fnai hearing and deter
mination Of the merits OF the allegations.
The decision Is the result OF a suit
brought by the Northern Pacific against
the Columbia 4 Puget Sound and Pacific
Coast companies over the occupancy Of
the single track Jointly used by the two
roads between this city and Black River
junction. The road has. for a number Of
years, been Jointly occupied by the liti-
giants The trains OF both companies
have been operated over II since the year
1873. In its bill OF complaint the paintiff
claimed ownership OF the road and alleged
that the defendants sustained the relation
of tenant The plaintiff further alleged
contract between IL and the Seattle &
San Francisco Railroad and Navigation
Company. by which II had agreed 10 per
NIT the latter company 10 run its trains
over the track without the consent OF the
defendants. TO which the latter objected
The defendants denied the claim OF title
and specifically denied the plaintiffs al
legation that the defendants had any In
tention to hamper the complainant in the
operation OF its own trains over the
tracks In question, but admitted that Il
challenged the right OF the Northern Pa
cinc to delegate It's trackage facilities to
A third party
In commenting upon the contentious of
the contestants the court says:
For the court to disturb the defend
ants possession OF the property before
the case can be tried and the facts adj
judged In a lawful manner, when 1t Is ad-
mitted that the defendants are not ag-
gressive. and when the complaint Is met
with "a complete and positive denial OF the
allegation upon which the demand for an
Injunction Is based, would he a violation
OF the fundamental principles OF our gov
eminent and contrary 10 equity and pTae-
tice"
After a citation OF the authorities sub
United by contending counsel the court
holds
Il md that they unanimously deny the
right Of court OF equity to grant a
mandatory injunction. giving TO a com
plainant the enjoyment of rights not pre-
viouSly exercised before a mai hearing
In "a case in which the facts upon when
the complainant relies are specifically de-
MED by an answer made IN good faith
when there is no imminent danger OF
physical destruction Of or serious injury
TO. existing property"
The case was, In the present ruling.
considered merely In the determination
Of the right OF the plaintiff for IA provi-
sional Injunction. The court expressly
disclaims any intention OF determining
any Of the merits Of the case at bar ok
10 the Issuance OF the applied for fuiunc-
ton, which Is denied