BEARDSLEY
v.
ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA RAILWAY COMPANY
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.
Paul F. Beardsley appealed a decree in equity from the lower court, but John D. Beardsley alone appealed on behalf of the defendants without joining his co-defendants as required. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in equity cases, all parties against whom a joint decree has been rendered must join in any appeal, and a single defendant cannot appeal separately without a court order granting permission to do so.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mi?.. Chief Justice' Fullee,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
This appeal was perfected as to the Arkansas and Louisiana Railway Company only by the giving of bond as required by statute. Rev. Stat. §§ 1000, 1012. . And while the omission of the bond does hot necessarily avoid an appeal, if otherwise properly taken, and, in proper cases, this court may; permit the bond to be supplied, no application for such relief has been made in this case, nor could it properly be accorded after the lapse of nearly four years since the decree.- The appeal might, therefore, well be dismissed, because ineffectual as to complainant, Paul F. Beardsley. .
But this must be the' result on another ground. To the decree, Paul F. Beardsley was party complainant, and John D. Beardsley, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain' and Southern Eailway Company, Jay Gould, and the Arkansas and Louisiana Eailway Company were parties defendant.
It is settled, for reasons too obvious to need repetition, that in equity causes Ml parties against whom a joint decree is rendered must join in an appeal, if any be taken ; but this appeal was taken by John D. Beardsley alone, and there is nothing in the record to show that his codefendants were applied to and refused to appeal, nor was any order entered by the court, on notice, granting a separate appeal to John D. Beardsley in respect-of his own interest. The appeal cannot be sustained. Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179; Davis v. Mercantile Co., 152 U. S. 590.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winters v. The United States, 207 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1908)…is v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 225, 230; Mason v. United States, 136 U. S. 581; Dolan v. Jennings, 139 U. S. 385; Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179; Inglehart v. Stansbury, 151 U. S. 68; Davis v. Mercantile Trust Company, 152 U. S. 590; Beardsley v. Railway, 158 U. S. 123, 127; Wilson v. Kiesel, 164 U. S. 248. Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521, 523; Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 259; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Brewster v. Wakefield; 22 How. 118, 129; Milner v. Meek, 95 U. S. 252; Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 602, 608; Han…
-
Am. Baptist Home Mission Soc. v. Barnett, 26 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1928)…6, 19 L. Ed. 953; Mason v. United States, 136 U. S. 581, 10 S. Ct. 1062, 34 L. Ed. 545; Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179, 13 S. Ct. 39, 36 L. Ed. 933; Inglehart v. Stansbury, 151 U. S. 68, 14 S. Ct. 237, 38 L. Ed. 76; Beardsley v. Ark. & La. Ry. Co., 158 U. S. 123, 15 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 919; Garcia v. Vela, 216 U. S. 598, 30 S. Ct. 439, 54 L. Ed. 632; Grand Island, etc., Co. v. Sweeney, 103 F. 342 (C. C. A. 8); Ibbs v. Archer, 185 F. 37 (C. C. A. 3); Priest v. Seaman, 266 F. 844 (C. C. A. 8); Babcock v. No…1 / 2
-
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs Sec. Corp. of N.Y. v. W. L. Shepherd Lumber Co., 51 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1931)…decree was joint and can only be jointly appealed from, invoking the rule in Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179; 13 S. Ct. 39, 36 L. Ed. 933; Davis v. Mercantile Trust Co., 152 U. S. 590, 14 S. Ct. 693, 38 L. Ed. 563; Beardsley v. Arkansas & L. R. Co., 158 U. S. 123, 15 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 919; American Baptist Home Mission v. Barnett (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 350, 351. Appellant defends against the motion, asserting that this is a ease “where the respective interests of several defendants who are affected by a j…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1892)
- Davis v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 152 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1894)
- Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1891)