Cashman v. Amador Sacramento Canal Co

• Decision Date: 19 April 1886
• Citation: Cashman v. Amador Sacramento Canal Co, 118 U.S. 58, 6 S.Ct. 926, 30 L.Ed. 72 (1886)
• Parties: CASHMAN v. AMADOR & SACRAMENTO CANAL CO. and others. Filed
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

118 U.S. 58

6 S.Ct. 926

30 L.Ed. 72

CASHMANv.AMADOR & SACRAMENTO CANAL CO. and others.

Filed April 19, 1886.

A. L. Rhodes, for appellant, George Cashman.

J. H. McKune, for appellees, Amador & Sacramento Canal Co., and others.

WAITE, C. J.

This is an appeal under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137), from an order of the circuit court dismissing a suit on the ground that it did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of that court.The facts are these: Cashman, the plaintiff, was an alien, and he owned a tract of 700 acres of land in Sacramento county, California, situated on the Cosumnes river, which it is claimed was injured by the mining debris thrown on it in the working of certain mines by hydraulic process.On the ninth of September, 1885, a bill in chancery was filed in the circuit court of the United States, in the name of Cashman against the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, a California corporation, and certain other defendants, all citizens of California, to restrain them from operating their mines so as to allow the debris to be deposited on his premises.Subpoenas were issued and served on some or all of the defendants, returnable on the second of November.On the return-day a motion was made by some of the defendants, and among others the Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, and because it was commenced and prosecuted in violation of the provisions of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875.At the hearing of this motion it appeared, by the admission of both parties, that the county of Sacramento and Cashman had, on or before the sixth of October, 1885, entered into a contract in writing, of which the following is a copy:

'Whereas, the county of Sacramento desires to restrain the miners working by hydraulic process on the Cosumnes river, and using the bed thereof as a place for the deposits and wastage of the tailings and debris from their mines; and whereas, it is desired to bring such suit in the circuit court of the United States for the district of California, and in the Ninth circuit; and whereas, George Cashman has brought, or is about to bring, such suit in said circuit court against the miners working on the Cosumnes river by hydraulic process; and whereas, the county of Sacramento is directly interested in the said suit, and in the subject-matter of litigation, and the same is brought for its benefit, the county being unable to sue in such court; and whereas, the county of Sacramento, by a resolution duly passed by its board of supervisors on the twenty-second day of September, 1885 has agreed to pay the costs and expenses of such suit, and to keep the said George Cashman safe and harmless from all counsel fees, costs, and charges to be paid or incurred therein: now, therefore, this contract and indenture, made in pursuance of said resolution between the county of Sacramento, the party of the first part, and George Cashman aforesaid, party of the second part,...