rm: nmsms msn. 31
· The judgment at law was ’ modified so as tolappcrtion the damages
and costs equally among the defendants; and affirmed as to the injunc-
tion. Even the action at law was thus sustatnedr If in that case
" all who act must be held to act jointly," and "the wrong complained
of is¥the result of their joint action,"‘ I cannotperceive why, for the
purpose of equitable jurisdiction, the same consequences should not
follow in the Keyes Case and in the case now under consideration.
In this lease the action of any one defendant, or any one offmany l
other miners alone, might not, and probablylwould not, produce; any
appreciable effect at complainants locality, or occasion theslightest
nuisance or injury. In that case isit not "quite" as "evident, there-
fore, that, without unity orconcert of action, no wrong could be com-
mitted?" audis itnot equally a case, where tall who act must be ‘
held to act jointly ?’*» · If not, why not? It devolvesupon those who
maintain the contrary to clearlyshow why not; l A ‘
. So,iBLaisdell v. Stephens, 14 Nev. 22, was acombined suit. at law--
to recover damages which had already resulted from ainuisance-e-
and in equity to restrain its continuance., The two defendants,
Sessions and Stephens, each separately and independently of the ` V
other, allowed water to runsfrom his lands upon theilands of the
plaintiffs, the combined action of which iiujured plaintiffs' {ditch, q
which constituted the nuisance complained of. There was a joint
judgmentfor the damages, and an injunction: ~ On appeal, the su-
preme court held that, the act of each party being independent of
the other, there was no joint liability at law, and reversed the judg- _
ment, and ordered 'a new trial. Upon a petition for rehearing, it
was insisted that it was a proper case for equitable relief, even if the _
K judgment at law could not be maintained. And upon a re-examina-
tion of the case, the court nnally held, in accordance with the author·
ities, that there could be no joint recoverylat law for the damages,
but that it was a proper case for an injunction, and remanded the
case, with directions that, if the damages should be remitted within
15 days, thetdecree for an injunction should stand. That case is ex-
actly in point, also, and shows that this case is a proper one for an
injunction, although there may not be a right to recover joint dam-
ages at law——that there is no misjoinder of parties, and no multifa-
riousness in equity. That casealso fully answers the question so
confidently propounded by defendants’ counsel, whether, had this
case been brought in a state court, where law and equity are admin-
istered in the same case at law for damages, and in equity for an in-
junction, and been transferred to this court and divided into two