OCR Text |
Show -16- in the diversion of the waters of Milk River, concert of action or union of intcrost. The answer to tho bill is joint and several, and in effeot avers ccparato rights, interests and action on the part of the defendants. In othor words, v.hatovor rights were asserted or admission of acts done by any one defendant had ; no dependence upon or relation tc tho acts of any other defendant in the appropriation or diversion of the water. If trespassers at all, they v.ero separate trespassers. Joinder in one suit did not necessarily identify them. resides, the defendants other than appellants defaulted. A decree pro conies: o was onterod against them, and thereafter, according to Fquity Rule 19, the cause was required to proceed ox P'^'to and tht: matter of the bill decreed by the court. Thomson v. Woostcr, 114 U. S. 104. The decree woe in due course made absolute and /'.ranting that It might have been appealed from by the defaulting defendants, they would havo been, as said in Thomson v. 7,'ooater, absolutely barred and procluded from questioning its correctness, unless on the face of the bill it appeared manifest that it was arro-ncour and improperly granted. Thoir rights, therefore, wore cntiroly different from thoso of tho appellants; they wore naked trespassers, and conceded by thoir default the rights of tho United States and tho Indians, and worn in no position to rcnlct tho prayor of tho bill. But tho oppollanti.* justified by countor rights and submitted those rights for judgment. There is nothing, thcrofore, in common botwoon appellants and the other defendants. Tho motion to dismiss is denied and we pro-coed to the merits. |