Plymouth Consolidated Gold Min Co v. Amador Canal Co Same v. Same
Decision Date | 10 May 1886 |
Citation | 30 L.Ed. 232,6 S.Ct. 1034,118 U.S. 264 |
Parties | PLYMOUTH CONSOLIDATED GOLD MIN. CO. and others v. AMADOR & S. CANAL CO. (Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.) SAME v. SAME. (In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.) Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. H. Boaet, for appellants, Plymouth Consolidated Gold Min. Co. and others. J. H. McKune, for appellee, Amador & S. Canal Co.
The Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, a California corporation, brought suit in the superior court of Sacramento county, California, against the Plymouth Consolidated Gold Mining Company, a New York corporation, and Alvinza Hayward, E. L. Montgomery, and Walter S. Hobart, citizens of California, to enjoin them from polluting the waters running into the canal of the Amador Company, and to recover $25,000 damages for what had already been done in that way.
The material averments in the complaint, as to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants, are as follows:
The Plymouth Company answered separately, setting forth that it was a New York corporation, whose powers were by law vested in seven trustees, of whom the defendants Haywood and Hobart were two, and that Montgomery was the superintendent of its mines and mills in California. The answer then admitted that the corporation was the owner of the mills mentioned in the complaint, and that 'it has at said mills carried on and conducted the business of crushing gold-bearing quartz rock, and extracting and collecting gold therefrom, and used large quantities of water in and about said business, and that some of said water was taken from the Moquelumne river; but it denies that all of said water was taken therefrom; and it denies that it has during the time alleged in the complaint, or at any other time, or at all, carried on or conducted at said mills, or either of them, or elsewhere, the said business, or any business, or has used large quantities of water, or any water, in or about said business, or otherwise, in connection with the other defendants mentioned in the complaint, or either of them; but, on the contrary, this defendant avers that said business has been carried on and conducted, and said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Abernathy
... ... for defendant ... (4) Same as 3, except public crossing is substituted for ... circuit judge, is disputed, and that of Plymouth Gold ... Mining Co. v. A. & S. Canal Co., 118 ... ...
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... intestate was at the same time the conductor of one of the ... colliding ... from Plymouth Co. v. Amador Co., 118 U.S. 264, 6 ... S.Ct ... S.Ct. 767, 29 L.Ed. 912; Mining Co. v. Canal Co., ... 118 U.S. 264, 6 S.Ct. 1034, 30 L.Ed ... ...
-
Schwyhart v. Barrett
... ... Little York Gold Co. v. Keys, 96 U.S. 190, 24 Law ... Ed. 656; ... Min ... Co. v. Amador Canal Co., 118 U.S. 264; Railroad v ... Lucy ... the same." ... [145 ... Mo.App. 345] ... ...
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co
...v. Root (C. C.) 94 Fed. 760. It was said by the court in Railroad v. Wangelin, supra, citing and quoting from Plymouth Co. v. Amador Co., 118 U. S. 264, 6 Sup. Ct. 1034, 30 L. Ed. 232: "It is possible, also, that the company may be guilty and the other defendants not guilty; but the plainti......