CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


PLYMOUTH GOLD MINING CO. V. AMADOR CO., 118 U. S. 264 (1886)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 118 U. S. 264 RSS feed for this section

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

Syllabus

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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 118 U. S. 265





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED