Tum Dmsms CASE. V 27`
vent the remaining lands, bordering on the streams mentioned, from ,
being in like manner covered up and destroyed; that the deposits ,
within the levees have already raised the level of the beds of the
streams many—in some cases 50—feet; and that the constant rais-
ing of the level of the beds of thestreams, and the lands already buried
inthe debris, renders it necessary to constantly increase the height · A
of the levees at great expense to the people and the complainant; that
the navigation of the Feather river has been greatly obstructed by, ·
these deposits, to the great inconvenience of commerce and naviga· V
tion, and damage to the complainant and the public; that these de-
posits constitute a great public and private nuisance, which nuisance
· is rapidly increasing and becoming more intolerable; that these op-
erations of defendants are still continued, and will be continued; and
that the destruction of property of complainant and others will take ,
place, and irreparable injury result, unless the defendants are re-
strained by injunction.
Defendants demur to the bill; and the two points relied on are V
misjoinder of defendants, and multifariousness in this: (1) That each
defendant is pursuing its business, severally, without any connection
‘ with the other, and without any joint intent or joint action; that the
cause of action is distinct and several, as against each, and neither
the defendants nor the several causes of action can be joined in the
same suit. (2) That the co-tenant of the complainant is a necessary,
and indispensable, party to the suit; and that the suit cannot be main-
tained without making him a party either as plaintii or defendant.
After a very careful examination and analysis of the numerous au-
thorities cited on the first point, I am entirely satisfied that under ‘
the principles of equity jurisprudence, as established in England and
the United States, adopting that system, there is no _misjoinder of
defendants; and that the bill is not multifarious in the particulars
suggested. It is true that_ each defendant is, independently, working
its own mines without any conspiracy or preconcert of understand-
ing or action with the others; but they all pour their mining debris
into the several streams, which they know must, by the force of the
currents, be carried down into the main river, where they must. com-
mingle into one indistinguishable mass long before they reach the point
where the nuisances complained of are committed and the damages
are created. This commingling of the debris discharged into the
various streams by the several defendants, and passing on to work
the destruction alleged,-this aggregation of waste material, which,
after aggregation, is precipitated upon the plains below, and creates
 r.. ..-._%_n_ o,,n, %____