South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300 (1892). · Go Syfert
Search
South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300 (1892). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we cannot ... consent to determine a controversy in which the plaintiff has become the dominus litis on both sides.”
230 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 37 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vincit, LLC v. Brown (txed, 2024-07-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Vincit, LLC v. Brown (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D. Tex. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we cannot ... consent to determine a controversy in which the plaintiff has become the dominus litis on both sides.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez v. Smith (2×)
SCOTUS · 2009 · confidence medium
The overriding concern is equitable: “From the beginning we have disposed of moot cases in the manner ‘ “most conso nant to justice” ... in view of the nature and character of the conditions which have caused the case to become moot.’ ” Id., at 24 (quoting United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 477-478 (1916), in turn quoting South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, 302 (1892); alteration in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Banks v. Lappin
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
No court may entertain an action where the parties are not adversaries. see also South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 (1892) (concluding that the court could not adjudicate a matter between two corporations which, since the lower court ruling, had come under the control of the same persons).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barney O. Padgett v. James B. Peake
Vet. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Jurisdiction is the power to declare law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the case.") (internal citations omitted). 5 (1916) (quoting South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300, 302 (1892))).
cited Cited as authority (rule) John N. Basic, Sr. v. Fitzroy Engineering, Ltd.
7th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador Gold Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 (1892).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership
SCOTUS · 1994 · confidence medium
From the beginning we have disposed of moot cases in the manner “ ‘most consonant to justice’... in view of the nature and character of the conditions which have caused the case to become moot.” United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 477-478 (1916) (quoting South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, 302 (1892)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Continental Assurance Co. v. MacLeod-stedman, Inc. (4×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Ill. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361 , 31 S.Ct. 250, 255 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911); South Spring, 145 U.S. at 301, 12 S.Ct. at 921; Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 251, 254-55 (1850); Granfield v. Catholic University of America, 530 F.2d 1035, 1045 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. The Honorable Vern Orr
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 464 , 81 L.Ed. 617, 621 (1937)); see also GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union, 445 U.S. 375, 382 , 100 S.Ct. 1194, 1199 , 63 L.Ed.2d 467, 475 (1980); Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 , 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308 , 60 L.Ed.2d 895, 906 (1979); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 , 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1950 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947, 958 (1968); Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93 , 65 S.Ct. 1483, 1487 , 89 L.Ed. 2072, 2076 (1945); South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 , 12 S.Ct. 92…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aviation Entersprises, Inc. v. Orr
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 464 , 81 L.Ed. 617, 621 (1937)); see also GTE Syivania, Inc. v. Consumers Union, 445 U.S. 375, 382, 100 S.Ct. 1194, 1199 , 63 L.Ed.2d 467, 475 (1980); Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 , 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308 , 60 L.Ed.2d 895, 906 (1979); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 , 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1950 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947, 958 (1968); Railway Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93 , 65 S.Ct. 1483, 1487 , 89 L.Ed. 2072, 2076 (1945); South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 , 12 S.Ct.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie
W.D. Okla. · 1983 · confidence medium
South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador Gold Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 [ 12 S.Ct. 921 , 36 L.Ed. 712 ]; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 [ 42 S.Ct. 274, 275 , 66 L.Ed. 499 ]; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487, 488 [ 43 S.Ct. 597, 601 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harold A. Spriggs, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jerry v. Wilson, Chief of Police (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
South Spring [Hill] Gold [Mining] Co. v. Amador [Medean] Gold [Mining] Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 [ 12 S.Ct. 921 , 36 L.Ed. 721 ]; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 [ 42 S.Ct. 274, 275 , 66 L.Ed. 499 ]; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487-488 [ 43 S.Ct. 597, 601 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank of Marin v. England (2×)
SCOTUS · 1966 · confidence medium
Co., 149 U. S. 308, 313-314 (1893); South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador Gold Co., 145 U. S. 300, 301-302 (1892).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., a Body Corporate
D.C. Cir. · 1964 · confidence medium
South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador [Medean] Gold [Mining] Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 [ 12 S.Ct. 921 , 36 L.Ed. 712 ] ; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 [ 42 S.Ct. 274 , 66 L.Ed. 499 ]; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487, 488 [ 43 S.Ct. 597 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Aguayo (2×)
prsupreme · 1958 · confidence medium
Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 342 (1892) ; Gardner v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 131 U.S. App. CIII (1873); Bartmeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, 134 (1873) ; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 15 (1922) ; Waia-hua Agricultural Co. v. Maneja, 178 F.2d 603, 606 (C.C.A. 9, 1949); Moore v. Caldwell County et al., 176 S.E. 580 (N.C. 1934) ; Navarro v. Calderón, 61 P.R.R. 328 , 330 (1945) ; Echeandía v. Saldaña, 61 P.R.R. 771 , 777 (1945) —or from the admissions of the attorneys in the oral argu ments — Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541, 546 (C.C.A. 2, 1942) ; Washington Market Co. v. Dis…
examined Cited "see" Dasma Investments, LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P. (3×)
S.D. Fla. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See South Spring Hill Gold Min Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Min Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 , 12 S.Ct. 921 , 36 L.Ed. 712 (1892) (‘We cannot ... consent to determine a controversy in which the plaintiff has become the dominus litis on both sides.”).
examined Cited "see" Dr. Ronnie Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockette (3×)
5th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300 , 12 S.Ct. 921 , 36 L.Ed. 712 (1892) (Court will not decide case in which plaintiff in error and defendant in error are controlled by same persons).
examined Cited "see" DeFunis v. Odegaard (5×)
Wash. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
When dealing with the lower federal courts, then, the Supreme Court has exercised its discretionary appellate supervisory power to reverse and remand decisions that are moot, rather than simply dismissing the appeals, upon two primary theories: (1) whenever in its opinion justice requires it, the court has asserted that it has the authority to deal with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the suit; see South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U.S. 300 , 36 L.Ed. 712 , 12 S.Ct. 921 (1892); Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 , 40 L.Ed. 293 , 16…
discussed Cited "see" Poe v. Ullman (2×)
SCOTUS · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, 301 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." NLRB v. Constellium Rolled Products
4th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., S. Spring Hill Gold-Mining v. Amador Medean Gold-Mining, 145 U.S. 300, 301 (1892).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. v. Rice (3×)
D.D.C. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-64 , 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937); see also South Spring Gold Co. v. Amador Gold Co., 145 U.S. 300, 301 , 12 S.Ct. 921, 921 , 36 L.Ed. 712 (1892); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 , 42 S.Ct. 274, 275 , 66 L.Ed. 499 (1922); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 , 43 S.Ct. 597, 601 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
South Spring Hill Gold Mining Company
v.
Amador Medean Gold Mining Company
338.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1892.
145 U.S. 300
Mr,_ George 8. Boutwell for plaintiff in error., No appearance for defendant in error.
Fuller.
Cited by 95 opinions  |  Published
[*301] 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 tlie 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[*302] 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. '