The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1918-02-07

to 1t where the ores may go for -smelt-
ing purposes.
Other clauses of the agreement will
receive attention later.
Agreement Of 1910.
A controversy arose in 1910 with
reference to the clauses under discus
sion. wherein 1t was claimed by the
mining company that it should receive
a higher rate for it's normal ores. This
resulted in the agreement of Novem-
Der II, 1910, whereby the smelling
company agreed to pay, in addition to
the price agreed upon under the orig
inal contract, the sum of IS cents pei
ton, to extend from June 1, 1910, to
June /, 1915. Since the latter date
take it from statement Of counsel for
complainant-the smelling company
has been paying the increased rate.
The ores not included by the nor
NAL grade have a different history
Those falling below 80 per cent lead
assay have been relatively small in
amount, and not a great deal of dis
pute has arisen concerning them. AS
to those containing rs per cent lead
assay and above, there has been con-
siderable controversy. These contro-
versies were adjusted from time to
time in pursuance of Judge Lindleys
Interpretation of the agreement. and
the parties continued in mutual accord
concerning them until June 5, 1915, the
date when the smelling company noti-
fed the mining company that after
June 7, this particular grade of ore
would be settled for on the regular
contract rate, namely SIG treatment
basis, and 80 per cent of lead at 80 per
cent of New York quotations up to
$4.1O plus one-half the excess above
$40. No adjustment between the
parties followed this notification. The
mining company thereupon insisted
that the smelling company receive the
whole of the 81 tons of lead maximum
shipment per day at Tacoma. This be-
ing refused, it declared that the smelt-
ing company had preached it's agree
ment. Matters have so remained up
to the present time; the mining COM
pany continuing it's shipments of nor
may grade ores to smelters controlled
by the A. S. & r. company.
Ground for Injunction.
The mining company has recently
constructed smelter of it's own, and
though it has not yet diverted any of
the ores agreed to be sold to the
company, except some of the
high and low grade, it has threatened
to do so, and there is no doubt that
such is it's purpose, unless it's obliga-
lions under the agreement prevent it
from so doing.
The agreement has been assigned by
the smelling company to the A. S. &
r. company, the plaintiff.
1t is unnecessary to review the au-
thorities respecting the condition UNI
der which the preliminary injunctfons
may issue. 1t is only essential that it
appear that there. is a probable right,
and a probable danger that such right
will be defeated without the immedi-
ate interposition of the court. The
purpose of such injunctive relief is to
maintain the status quo, and it will
be granted wherever the questions of
law or fact to be ultimately determin-
ed are grave and difficult, and injury
70 the moving party will be immedi-
lite, certain, and great, if denied, while
he loss or inconvenience to the OPP
posing party will be comparatively
mall if granted. Sanitary Reduction
Works v. California Reduction Co., "a
Fed. 500; Denver & Rio Grande r. Co.
;. United States, 124 Fed. 1856; Ma
;ruder v. Belle Fourche Valley Water
Jsers' Association, 219 Fed. ~.
Along with fixed rules of law, there
8 need of sound discretion to be ex-
rcised at all times, in view of the
ttendant facts and conditions.
1t is urged that the bill fails to state
cause of suit for specific perform
nee or an injunction, in that it is
personality, and it appears
hat complaint has a plain, speedy,
nd complete remedy at law, and fur
her, that the conditions are such that
court of equity will not intervene to
nforce specific performance.
Question for Court to Decide. i
] will not attempt to pass categor-
ally upon the bill as to it's suff1cien-
y, except to inquire whether the
uestions presented are grave and
'eighty, and difficult Of solution, and
UGH as to call for maintenance of !