## Facts

- Libby, McNeill & Libby operated a salmon trap at the same Cook Inlet tideland site for about 25 years, treating the location as important to its cannery operations.
- Applicable law did not recognize a private property right in salmon trap sites on tidelands, though local practice generally respected seasonal reoccupation by prior users.
- Lewis asserted control over adjacent uplands and a cabin associated with the site and sought payment from the company for continued use connected to the trap location.
- Negotiations initially moved toward an agreement, but Lewis increased his demands; the company refused.
- Lewis then constructed his own trap at or near the established site.
- The company began constructing a second nearby trap to maintain operations.
- As staked and constructed, the two traps would be closer than allowed by governing minimum-distance fishing regulations, exposing both parties to potential criminal liability.
- Lewis sued for an injunction to stop the company from completing and operating its second trap.

## Issues

1. Whether either party had a legally protectable, exclusive right in a salmon trap site located on Alaska tidelands.
2. Whether longstanding local custom of seasonal reoccupation could create an enforceable priority right supporting injunctive relief.
3. Whether equity should enjoin a competing trap where the dispute and requested relief would entrench or facilitate noncompliance with distance regulations and conflict with public regulatory policy.

## Decision

- The court denied Lewis’s request for injunctive relief.
- The court refused to recognize any exclusive, enforceable right in the tideland trap site based on prior use, upland claims, or local custom.
- The court declined to use equitable relief in a controversy intertwined with trap placement that would violate minimum-distance regulations and implicate criminal enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- No private party acquires a vested property right in a fish trap site on tidelands held for public use; such locations remain subject to sovereign regulation and the public interest.
- Local custom of recognizing seasonal reoccupation may inform expectations but cannot create a legal estate or exclusive right where law withholds property rights.
- Injunctive relief requires a clear legal right and clean hands; equity will not grant relief that effectively protects, rewards, or perpetuates conduct contrary to regulatory requirements or public policy.

## Conclusion

The court denied an injunction because salmon trap sites on Alaska tidelands were not private property, local reoccupation custom did not create enforceable exclusivity, and equitable relief was inappropriate where the parties’ competing trap placements would violate distance regulations and conflict with the public regulatory scheme.


Lewis v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 113 F. Supp. 272 (D. Alaska 1953)