upholding injunction against hydraulic mining company that had been “daily discharging into the [American] river between four and five thousand cubic yards of solid material from its said mine, to-wit, of bowlders [sic], cobbles, gravel, and sand,” which, together with similar discharges of other companies, had caused the American and Sacramento Rivers to become 6 to 12 feet shallower, making navigation much more difficult, and in some places impossible, and the likelihood of flooding much greater
How later courts described this case
- upholding injunction against hydraulic mining company that had been “daily discharging into the [American] river between four and five thousand cubic yards of solid material from its said mine, to-wit, of bowlders [sic], cobbles, gravel, and sand,” which, together with similar discharges of other companies, had caused the American and Sacramento Rivers to become 6 to 12 feet shallower, making navigation much more difficult, and in some places impossible, and the likelihood of flooding much greater
- “An 24 unauthorized invasion of the rights of the public to navigate the water flowing over the soil 25 is a public nuisance; and an unauthorized encroachment upon the soil itself is known in 26 law as a purpresture.”
- describing environmental impacts of the California Gold Rush
- affirming injunction against hydraulic gold mining because of impacts on downstream riv- ers
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Thornton, J., concurring
-Whether Keyes v. Little York Company, 53 Cal. 724 , is or not overruled by Hillman v. New ington, 57 Cal. 62 ,1 express no opinion. No question of that kind, in my judgment, is involved in this case, or necessary to its decision, and therefore I forbear to give any opinion upon it. As to the other points discussed in the opinion of Justice McKee, I agree with what is said, and the conclusion reached by him.