Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-03-14
CONFLICT Of
JURISDICTION
Silver King-Plymouth Case
Dismissed.
SIMILAR SUIT PENDING
Judge Lindsay Declines to Act-ln-
junction Stands For Fifteen
Days Pending Appeal

Judge Lindsay disposed Of the Ply
Silver King mine controversy IN
order today, and based 1t all upon
the fact that the issue Of a second action
brought in the case and filed in his de-
partment were almost like those of a
previous suit instituted in Judge Clancy's
At the request of Attorney
HARDWOOD. however. one of the legal rep
r~esentatives of the parties to the con-
troversy, the judge followed his decision
by making an order allowing the present
injunction order to stand for Is days
pending an appeal. The HARDWOOD side
will have to give a bond Of 81, 500.
In passing upon the matter the judge
said:
1T appears that on the 9th of July,
1899, a suit was commenced in the dis
trict court by James H. Maloney and
others against Silas F. King and others
involving title to a lode which may, for
the purpose of this order, be designated
as the Plymouth-Silver King vein. The
defendants filed an answer denying the
cause of action set forth by the complaint
and alleged ownership of the ledge in
controversy in themselves, and that by
virtue Of their title thereto they of right
were entitled to follow the vein on its
dip into the premises Claimed Dy the
plaintiffs. A restraining order was asked
and granted and upon a hearing contin-
ued in effect during the tendency of the
suit. The case in question is still pend
ing in Department 2 of this court, the
same not yet having been determined.
Thereafter, to-wit.: On the goth of Octo-
Der, 1899, a second action was instituted
in the same department by the defend
ants against the plaintiffs in the former
suit. The latter action involved prac-
tically the same issues as had been pre-
sented by the former suit, n it would
seem to me that any and all matters
thereby submitted might have beer adj
Indicated in the action entitled Maloney
ct al. VS.. King ct al. Such a course
would I've been amply justified by good
practice; and, with a view to avoiding a
multiplicity of suits, been worthy of
commentator.
prom an order made by the district
court In Gauss No. S213. entitled King ct
al. VS.. Maloney ct al, dissolving the tenn
porary restraining order heretofore
issued and refusing a. temporary injunc-
ton therein, the plaintiffs appealed to the
supreme court, with the result that the
ruling of the district court was sus-
tanned.
after the determination of the appeal
the plaintiffs filed with the clerk of the
court a precipe for dismissal. and on the
same day. the 18th of February, 1900, in
stituted another suit which was filed in
Department No. 1 Of this court, the title
of the action being lila F.. King ct al.
VS.. James H.. Maloney ct al, which said
action prayed an adjudication of sub
, stantially the same matters involved in
the two former suits.
1.-THE policy of the law is against di-
viding into a number Of suits causes OF
action which may exist, and If incidental
causes of action arise subsequent to the
institution of a suit, as here appears, the
code of civil procedure amply provides
for the filing of supplemental pleadings
in order to provide against the com
mencement of nuemrous actions relating
to the one subject.
1T is apparent from the pleadings In
the matter now under consideration thai
the cause Of action stated Is Identical
with nat of the suit numbered 1918, dis
missed as aforesaid, with the sole excep-
ton that the plaintiffs in this cause seel
the interposition of the court to prevent
interference by the defendants with GER
ain workings made by the plaintiffs up.
on the so-called Plymouth Silver King
vein. which grievance, If it existed as al
legged, could appropriately have been pre-.
scented for adjudication in the former &C
ton by an amendment of the pleading:
in one or both of the suits instituted II
department of this count; or, If the mat.
ters n things complained of occurred
subsequent to the filing of the pleading!
in laid actions, such additional cause o.
Il causes or action or Oe1enSe might nav
properly been set up in a supplemental
complaint or answe Such a contention
as is now prevented should. as stated
have been determined in department No
2 of this court: and in view of the fac
that sad department has acquired of tn,
cause or causes of action set forth in tn,
two suits heretofore referred to, it woul,
seem that redress of the wrongs and en-
forcement of the rights Of the RESPECTIVE
parties should properly be determines
there.
Accordingly. I do not feel it incumben
upon myself to assume or take jurisdic
tion'of the matters set forth in the plead
ings herein, n l am of opinion that t
other than decline to take cognizance O
such causes Of action would tend to vex
atoms, disagreeable and unnecessar
conflicts of jurisdiction between the tw
departments of the district court an
would result in great confusion proven
the orderly administration Of justice an
encourage the institution Of numerou
suits.
1.-The court therefore declines to enter
tain jurisdiction of this action and here
= by orders dissolved the temporary re
Istraining order heretofore issued, dis
! misses the order to show cause. decline
: to issue h injupctions prayed. and OF
ders that this action be dismissed with
out prejudice"