EVENS & HOWARD FIRE BRICK CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U. S. 210 (1915)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 236 U. S. 210
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/236/210/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/236/210/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 210 (1915)
Evens & Howard Fire Brick Company v. United States
No. 567
Argued October 2, 1914
Decided February 23, 1915
236 U.S. 210
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Syllabus
The court below, in settling the decree on the mandate of this Court has no power to allow persons who were not parties to the action to intervene. This Court, however, can take action on an original petition for intervention in this Court. (See pp. 236 U. S. 194, 236 U. S. 199, ante.)
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal was taken from the order of the court refusing to allow an intervention on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to do so because, as the result of a previous final decree and an appeal taken therefrom by the United States, the authority of the court over the subject matter was ended. In effect the relief which was sought to be accomplished by the intervention below has been obtained as the result of an original petition for intervention here and our action this day taken thereon. As those applying to intervene were not parties to the record, we are of opinion that the court below had no power to allow them to intervene under the circumstances which existed, and its judgment refusing their application was therefore right, and is affirmed.