McMullen v. Halleck Cattle Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,110. |
| Parties | McMULLEN v. HALLECK CATTLE CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Lewers & Henderson, for complainant.
Lent & Humphrey, for Halleck Cattle Co.
Cheney Massey & Price, C. L. Harwood, and F. S. Gedney, for defendants Helena P. Johnston, Horace Lane, and Alice Lane.
B. R McCabe, for defendants Charles Wells, Anna Wells, Jesse Parker, Thomas Earl, John Goodale, and Henry Goodale.
It appears that one of the defendants, the Halleck Cattle Company, is a California corporation, while all other parties to the suit are citizens and residents of the state of Nevada. The Halleck Cattle Company caused the suit to be removed to this court on the ground that it involves a separable controversy between itself and plaintiff. The existence of such a controversy is the only question to be determined on plaintiff's present motion to remand. The suit was brought to quiet plaintiff's title to the use of the first 25 cubic feet per second of the waters flowing in Boulder creek, a natural surface stream of water, situated in Elko county, Nev. Beside the Halleck Cattle Company, there are nine defendants arranged in three groups. The complaint contains no allegation which in any manner indicates that Halleck Cattle Company's use or appropriation of the waters of the creek, or its claim of title thereto, is in any way connected with the use, claim, or appropriation of any other defendant or defendants, except that each defendant is interested in the same stream, the waters of which are insufficient to answer the aggregate demands of all. Furthermore, it does not appear that the company used any ditch or dam or irrigated any land in connection with any other defendant or defendants.
In Carothers v. McKinley Mining & Smelting Co. (C.C.) 116 F. 947, the plaintiff sought to quiet his title to a mining claim in White Pine county as against a number of defendants each of whom, it was alleged, claimed an interest in the premises, adverse to plaintiff. The defendants did not claim under any common source to plaintiff. The and were not jointly mentioned except by groups. Judge Hawley decided there was a separable controversy. In Bates v. Carpentier (C.C.) 98 F. 452, Judge Morrow in a similar case held that a suit to quiet title brought in a state court against a number of defendants for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication of all claims adverse to complainant which may exist in favor of any of the defendants is severable as to each defendant, and a defendant who is a citizen of a different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
...Irrigation Co., 114 P. 38, 19 Idaho, 372; Taylor v. Hulett et al., 97 P. 37, 15 Idaho, 265, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535; McMullen v. Hallock Cattle Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 282; 3 Foster, Federal Prac. (6th Ed.) par. 540; Nelson v. Hennessey (C. C.) 33 F. 113; Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Cincinnat......
-
IN RE GEN. ADJUDICATION OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER
...e.g., the substantial water rights acquired by Homestake Mining Company in the Black Hills in the late 1870's. 4 McMullen v. Halleck Cattle Co., 193 F. 282 (C.C.D.Nev.1910); Carothers v. McKinley Mining & Smelting Co., 116 F. 947 (C.C.D. Nev.1902); Bates v. Carpentier, 98 F. 452 (C.C.N.D.Ca......
-
Bonner v. Smith
...that these interests are joint, or in any way related, the cause is severable". 11 C.C.Nev., 1902, 116 F. 947, 950. 12 C.C.Nev., 1910, 193 F. 282, 284. Contra, Davey v. Yolo Water & Power Co., D.C.Cal., 1913, 211 F. 345. Cf. Lomax v. Foster Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 1909, 174 F. 959. The Lomax ca......
- In re Kolber