EX PARTE COCKCROFT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A non-party to a railroad foreclosure suit who held no bonds or other financial interest in the company sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to allow him to appeal from an order confirming a sale of railroad property. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that because the petitioner was never made a party to the suit and had no real interest in the controversy, he lacked standing to appeal and the Circuit Court properly denied his application.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This' is a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina to allow an appeal by the petitioner from an order of the court entered on the 7th of October, 1881, confirming a sale of a railroad made pursuant to a decree filed on the 25th of September, 1880, in the suit of Calvin, Claflin, and Others v. The South Carolina Railroad Company and Others. The petitioner was not a party to the suit, neither does it appear that he ever asked to be made a party. • He is not the holder of any of the bonds that by the decree under which the sale was made are 'entitled to a distributive share of the proceeds. Unless the property should bring at another sale enough to satisfy the mortgages and leave the balance for distribution among the general creditors of the company, he can get no advantage from setting aside the sale which has already been made. In his showing to the Circuit Court lie certainly did not make it appear that he had any real interest in the controversy. He was evidently heard -as a matter of favor, and not because he had any right to intervene. Before' confirming the sale the court seemed desirous of ascertaining whether, under all the circumstances, in the exercise of its judicial discretion such an order ought to be made. For this purpose it was willing to consider the affidavits produced by .the petitioner. This seems to have been done out of abundant caution, nob because it was necessary in law.
Inasmuch, therefore, as the petitioner was not made a party to the suit, either by an express order of the court' to that effect, or by being treated as such, his application for an _ap: .peal was properly denied. This case cannot be distinguished in principle from Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Grant and Burlingame v. United States, 227 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1913)…h was in its nature criminal and was instituted and conducted to the final judgment against Grant alone. Burlingame had no standing to sue out a writ of error. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530, 551; Payne v. Niles, 20 How. 219, 221; Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578. And the writ must be dismissed as to him. The judgment is attacked by Grant upon the ground that there has been a denial of constitutional right. It is contended by the Government that the writ should also be dismissed as to Grant because the fact…
-
Karcher v. MAY, 484 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1987)…s not a party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal therefrom. United States ex rel. Louisiana v. Jack, 244 U. S. 397, 402 (1917); Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581 (1911); Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578, 579 (1882); Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, 20-21 (1877). Karcher and Orechio intervened in this lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers on behalf of the New Jersey Legislature. They do not appeal the judgment in those capacities…
-
Ex parte in the Matter of Leaf Tobacco Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Y., 222 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1911)…Per Curiam: Leave to file petition denied. 1. One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530; Indiana v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 168; Ex parte Cockroft, 104 U. S. 578. 2. The action of the court below in refusing to permit the movers to become parties to the record is not susceptible of being reviewed by this court on appeal, or indirectly, under the circumstances here disclosed, by the writ of mandamus. In re C…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1876)