EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER
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.
The Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade sought review of a lower court's decision refusing to permit it to become a party to a record and judgment in litigation to which it was not an original party. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that non-parties to a record lack standing to appeal from judgments, that a court's decision refusing to add parties is not reviewable on appeal or by mandamus, and that a merely general interest in the subject matter does not confer authority to challenge such decisions, especially when the original parties have accepted the court's action.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 Cutting, 94 U. S. 15, and see Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311.
3. The merely general nature and character of the interest which the movers allege they háve in the papers here filed is not in any event of such a character as to authorize them in this proceeding to assail the action of the court below. This is more obvious in this case since the act of the court which is assailed has been accepted by those who are parties to the record. United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 105 U. S. 262; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1947)…appellees. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Chicago Junction R. Co., 156 F. 2d 357. 54 Stat. 916, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (11). See also Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578; In re Engelhard, 231 U. S. 646; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219; New York City v. New York Telephone Co., 261 U. S. 312. As it appears in the United States Code, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (11), this paragraph reads: “Representatives…
-
The Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1924)…ishes between those who are permitted to intervene, and thus become parties, and persons who are merely permitted to be heard. See Hurlburt v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C. 122, 125. Compare Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578. Leave to intervene can be granted only to one entitled under the act to complain to the Commission. The right to complain was broadly bestowed by Congress. Act of February 4, 1887, c. 104, § 13, 24 Stat. 379, 383, as amended June 18, 1910, c. 309,…
-
United States v. California Coöperative Canneries, 279 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1929)…risdiction on appeal. It did not refer to the decisions which hold that an order denying leave to intervene is not appealable, In re Cutting, 94 U. S. 15; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581; In re Engelhard, 231 U. S. 646; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219; New York v. New York Telephone Co., 261 U. S. 312, except where he who seeks to intervene has a direct and immediate interest in a res which is the subjec…
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)
- Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1879)
- In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1897)
- Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1900)
- Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1878)
- Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1881)
- Tyler v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 253 (U.S. 1872)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1875)
- Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1881)
- Dulles v. Jones, 9 How. 530 (U.S. 1850)