Search Supreme Court Cases


U.S. Supreme Court

Plymouth Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Co., 118 U.S. 264 (1886)

Plymouth Gold Mining Company v. Amador and Sacramento Canal Company

Submitted April 28, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 264


When the same cause is brought to this Court by appeal and by writ of error on the same record, it is not necessary to docket it twice.

A complaint or declaration charging a corporation and individuals who are its agents and servants with polluting a stream of water belonging to the plaintiff and rendering it unfit for use, and seeking a remedy against the defendants jointly, does not present a controversy separable for the purposes of removal from a state court, although the defendants answer separately setting up separate defenses.

Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41, and Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 278, affirmed and applied.

When a complaint or declaration in an action in a state court sets up a joint cause of action in tort against several defendants for injuries done jointly to plaintiff, separate answers of the defendants setting up that the acts complained of were committed under direction of one of them and were justified by a contract between plaintiff and that particular defendant, and that the acts complained of as done by the other defendants were done by them as his servants and under his directions, do not necessarily change the controversy between the plaintiff and that defendant into a separate controversy, removable to the courts of the United States under the removal acts, and allegations in the petition for removal that the agents were joined as defendants in order to prevent the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States are of no avail if not proved.

This was a motion to dismiss, to which was added a motion to affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 118 U. S. 265

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: PLYMOUTH GOLD MINING CO. V. AMADOR CO., 118 U. S. 264 (1886)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.