28 FEDERAL REPORTER.
the nuisance,-is the necessary and natural consequence of the action
of the several defendants; and they must, respectively, be presumed
to know and to contemplate these natural and known physically-new
I essary results. The nuisance is created by the joint action of the
debris from the various mines, which is combined, and afterwards
flows on together long before itreaches the lands injured and threat-
ened, and after such combination creates the nuisance complained
of. There is, therefore, a co-operation in fact, if not in intent, of
these several defendants inthe production of the nuisance. The in-
jury is the joint effect of acts originally several, but combined before
the debris is precipitated upon the lands below and the injury is ef-
fected, and in contemplation of equity it constitutes a single cause of
action. There is a common interest in the right claimed to discharge
debris into the streams. The defendants each and all claim a com-
mon, though not a joint, right. The final injury is a single one,———a
single result of the combined operation of this debris,—and all the de-
fendants co-operate in fact in producing it. No damages are sought.
Only equitable relief is demanded by restraining future action-a fut-
ure contribution by each to the nuisance.
In Thorpe v. Brumjitt, L. B. 8 Ch. App. 656, a bill was supported
against several parties acting individually and severally, in blocking
up the passage to an inn by loading and unloading wagons in it, in
the prosecution of their several callings. Lord Justice JAMES said:
‘• Then it was said that the plaintiff alleges an obstruction, caused by sev-
p eral persons acting independently of each other; and does not show what share
each had in causing it. It is probably impossible for a person in the plain-
tiff’s position to show this. Nor do I think it necessary that he should show
it. The amount of obstruction caused by any one of them might not, if it
stood alone, be sufhcient to give any ground of coinp1aint,though the amount
caused by them all may be a serious injury. Suppose one person leaves a
wheelbarrow standing on a way, that may cause no appreciable inconvenience,
but if a hundred do so, that may cause a serious inconvenience. which a per-
son entitled to use the way has a rig/at to prevent: and it is no defense to any
one person, among the hundred, to say that what he does causes no damage to
. the complainant." _
A decree granting a perpetual injunction in the case was affirmed.
In my judgment the present case is a much stronger one for sustain-
ing the bill. The nuisance in that case was not so clearly a joint
single effect of the acts of defendants co-operating together as that in
this In that case what each one did continued distinct and sepa-
rate, and could be readily ascertained, though the share of the dam-
ages might be indefinite. In this the deposits are commingled and