90 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



not be issued, while the inconvenience and loss to 

 the defendants would be inconsiderable if the in- 

 junction was granted. Now the question in this 

 court is not whether or not it would have issued 

 or would issue the injunction upon the evidence 

 before it. The granting or dissolution of an inter- 

 locutory injunction rests in the sound judicial dis- 

 cretion of the court of original jurisdiction, and 

 when that court has not departed from the rules 

 and principles of equity, established for its guid- 

 ance, its orders in this regard may not be reversed 

 by the appellate court without clear proof that it 

 abused its discretion. It is to the discretion of the 

 trial court, not to that of the appellate court, that 

 the law has entrusted the power to grant or dis- 

 solve such an injunction, and the question here is, 

 Does the proof clearly establish an abuse of that 

 discretion by the court below? American Grain 

 Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 202 Fed. 

 202, 206, 120 C. C. A. 644, 648, and cases there cited. 

 The controlling reason for the existence of the 

 right to issue a_n interlocutory injunction is that the 

 court may thereby prevent such a change of the 

 conditions and relations of persons and property 

 during the litigation as may result in irremediable 

 injury to some of the parties before these claims 

 can be investigated and adjudicated. A preliminary 

 injunction maintaining the existing situation may 

 properly issue whenever the questions of law and 

 fact to be ultimately determined in the suit are 

 grave and difficult and injury to the moving party 

 will be certain, great and irreparable if the motion 

 is denied, while the loss and inconvenience to the 



opposing party will be inconsiderable and may well 

 be indemnified by a proper bond if the injunction 

 is issued. City of Newton v. Levis, 79 Fed. 715, 

 718, 25 C. C. A. 161, 164; Love v. Atchison, T. & 

 S. F. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 321, 332, 107 C. C. A. 403, 

 414; King Lumber Co. v. Benton, 186 Fed. 458, 459, 

 108 C. C. A. 436, 437; Carpenter v. Knollwood 

 Cemeterv, 188 Fed. 856, 857; Henry Gas Co. v. 

 United States, 191 Fed. 132, 136, 111 C. C. A. 

 612, 616. 



A careful reading and thoughtful consideration 

 of the amended complaint, of each of the affidavits 

 and exhibits in the light of these established prin- 

 ciples of equity, have convinced that there is no 

 such proof in this case of an abuse of discretion by 

 the court below by its issue of the injunction as 

 would warrant a reversal of its order. The order 

 from which the appeal was taken must accordingly 

 be affirmed. 



And it is so ordered. 



BENSON HEADS IRRIGATION BODY 



E. F. Benson, of Tacoma, was re-elected presi- 

 dent of the Washington Irrigation Institute at the 

 recent meeting in North Yakima. Other officers 

 are Robert Insinger, Spokane ; Marvin Chase, Seat- 

 tle, vice-presidents ; O. L. Waller, Pullman, and 

 H. M. Gilbert, North Yakima, trustees, three-year 

 term. Roy Warnick, of North Yakima, was re- 

 elected secretary-treasurer by the executive com- 

 mittee. The institute will meet in North Yakima 

 next year. 



The New Era Elevating Grader 



For over fifty years the leader and pioneer for economical earth handling, has advanced still higher in 

 the estimation of practical earth handling contractors by its recent improvements. 



1. The Austin reversible earth deflector. 



2. The Austin roller bearing disc plow. 



3. The Austin automatic sand pan cleaner. 



AUSTIN MANUFACTURING CO. CHICAGO 



New York Office, 50 Church Street 



Canadian Agents, Mussens Ltd., Montreal 



Write for fully descriptive catalogue showing machines adapted to all kinds of special work 



When writing to advertisers please mention The Irrigation Age. 



