Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1911-07-06
NO INJUNCTION
In Applying the Two Mile Limit
Law.
DECIDES IDAHO COUNTY CASE
Damages Where the Defendants
Are Solvent.

Last week, Judge Steele rendered !
decision in an Idaho county case, il
Crooks va. the Salmon River Land
Co., the defendants being represented
by w. N. Scales Of this city, which i
far-reaching in effect as it deals with
the controversy between sheepmen
and cattlemen and involves the ap-
plication of the two.mile limit law.
The statement of the case and the de-
cision Of the court are as follows:
I'm this case the the plaintiff is the
owner Of land surrounded by an open
range, and has brought action for
damages against the defendant under
the provisions of what is known q
the Two Mile Limit Law This law
provides in substance that it shall be
unlawful for sheep to be herded upon
the range within two miles Of the
dwelling Of any person residing upon
lands, and provides that such owners
Of lands may recover all damages oc-
casioned thereby. The plaintiff. dur
ing the tendency Of the action, asks
for preliminary injunction prevent
ing the defendant from so herding the
said sheep.
81 have carefully examined the we'll
prepared brief Of the plaintiff fled
in support of his claim for an injunc-
tion, and find none of the cases cited
support his claim for an injunction.
and find none of the cases cited sup
port the contention Of the plaintiff
under the statute of this state govern
ing the herding Of sheep. The object
of granting preliminary injunction
is to hold matters in the present con-
dition until hearing can be had and
a permanent injunction granted, or Il
is granted, for the purpose f holding
property SO that q Judgment ~ tlaw
could be collected, where the plaintiff
has commenced an action at law for
a money judgment, as in the case II
bar. 1t is very evident that no por-
manent injunction could ever be
granted in this case, for the reason
that if the court should grant per-
manent injunction, the effect Of the
injunction would be to give the plain
tiff exclusive control Of range for at
least four miles square, making six
teen miles, as against the defendant,
although he might, in the future,
have no stock himself, and might 30
change conditions Of his own volition
that he could not be damaged in any
amount.
1.-THE plaintiff does not need the in
junction to aid in the collection Of this
t Judgment for the reason that the de-
fendant is solvent, and is admitted
I to be amply able to pay and Judgment
which may be obtained in this action.
"The congress of the United States
] has enacted that the assertion of the
exclusive use and occupancy Of any
! part Of the public domain without
claim or color of title is declared to
r be unlawful, and prohibited. (Mc
It Ginnis vs. Friedman, 2 Idaho, 396.
e The two mile limit law does not give
!. to the owner of lands, nor to one own
s ing a posseesory claim and residing
thereon, the exclusive right to the ust
J; Of sixteen square miles, nor does i
!, give him the right Of such land
?, may have stock which requires th,
y use Of portion Of such sixteen squar
n miles.
r "The granting Of a preliminary in
8. junction rests in the sound legal dia
cretion of the court and depends up
Or on the facts in each particular case
In the case at bar, both by the an
swer and by the aAidavits filed, th
defendant denies each of the materia
facts set forth in the complaint, an
d. denies that any damages have beel
le done or that the defendant intend
le to permit its sheep to range within
two miles of the dwelling house Of u
se s plaintiff. The granting Of . prelim
% % nary injunction in the case 1t b
u would be doing more than the mer
81 holding matters in statu quo. Court
80 Of equity should exercise care m
~ caution in granting preliminary d
o4 junction under such conditions N
IS should not grant such writ unless u
% ~ right thereto be perfectly clear ~
10 free from doubt.
ol "The statute in question prOvldl