SOUTH SPRING HILL GOLD MINING COMPANY
v.
AMADOR MEDEAN GOLD MINING COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a judgment in a mining company dispute where both parties had come under common ownership after the circuit court decision, leaving only a minority of stockholders in the defendant company with a genuine adverse interest. The Court held that it cannot adjudicate a case that has ceased to be a true controversy between adverse parties, and therefore reversed and remanded the judgment without deciding the merits to preserve the minority stockholders' right to litigate their interests.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court. •
This was an action brought by the Amador Medean Gold-Mining Company against the South Spring Hill Gold Mining Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, where it was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, to review which this writ of error was prosecuted. ’ The opinion .of Judge Sawyer, holding the Circuit Court, will be found reported in 36 Fed..Hep. 668.
When the case came bn for argument in this court the attorney for plaintiff in error very properly called our attention to the fact that, since the decision in the Circuit Court, “ the control-of both the corporations, parties to .this suit, had come into the hands of the same persons, but that there was a minority of stockholders in the Amador Medean Gold Mining Company who retained the interest that they had at the time •thedecision was rendered-;” “that the. two corporations were still in. existence and organized, and that the present managers and owners of the properties were anxious that the question' should be .decided, in order that the minority of the stockholders might receive whatevér, by the finding of the court, would be due to them.” No appearance has been entered for defendant in error, but a copy of the opening and closing briefs, filed on its behalf in the Circuit Court, has been printed and filed here by plaintiff in error. We cannot, however, consent to determine a controversy in which the plaintiff in error has become the ctominus litis on both sides. We assume that this is notan agreed case gotten up by collusion; but’the litigation has ceased to be between adverse parties, and the case therefore falls within the rule applied where the contfoversy is not a real one. Wood-paper Company v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 137 U. S. 62.
If the writ of error-be dismissed the judgment, will remain, undisturbed, and the plaintiff in error might be cut off from submitting the questions involved to the determination of the appellate tribunal; while if the judgment be reversed the minority of the stockholders of defendant in error would., be deprived of the benefit of an adjudication in its favor. But although the latter might be thereby subjected to the delay and expense of further litigation, they would still be free to vindicate whatever rights they are entitled to.
Without considering or passing upon the merits of the case in any respect, we deem it most consonant to justice to reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings in conformity to law, and it is so ordered. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937)…that is academic or moot. United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 116. The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having [*241] adverse legal interests. South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador Gold Co., 145 U. S. 300, 301; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126, 129; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 487, 488. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character,, as distinguished) from an opinio…
-
POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)…thetical, friendly or colorable suit such as discloses “a want of a truly adversary [*529] contest.” Clearly these cases are not analogous to Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333, or South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, where prior to consideration the controversy in effect became moot by the merger of the two contesting interests. Nor is there any question of collusion as in Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, or in United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 302. And there is n…1 / 2
-
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)…ad come-under the control of the same persons; Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; East Tennessee Railroad v. Southern Telegraph Co., 125 U. S. 695; South Spring Co. v. Amador Co., 145 U. S. 300; or when the matter had been compromised and settled between the parties; Dakota County v. Glidden, 113. U. S. 222; or ¡when, pending a suit concerning the validity of the assessment of a tax, the tax was paid; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 (U.S. 1850)
- Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 419 (U.S. 1861)
- Wood-paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333 (U.S. 1869)
- Wash. Mkt. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 137 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1890)