Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 173 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court
Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 173 (1883)Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company
Argued October 15, 1883
Decided November 5, 1883
109 U.S. 173
Syllabus
A person not a party to a suit cannot take an appeal in it.
On the 2d day of July, 1879, William H. Guion, claiming to have an interest in bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit of Indiana Southern Railroad Company v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company, just reported, filed his petition in that suit in the court below, asking to be admitted as a party to the suit for his own protection. This petition was denied. Guion was allowed an appeal on giving bond and security for cost, but the transcript does not show that he ever gave the bond.
The case was argued simultaneously with the case of Indiana Southern Railroad Company, and by the same counsel.
U.S. Supreme Court
Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 173 (1883)Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company
Argued October 15, 1883
Decided November 5, 1883
109 U.S. 173
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Syllabus
A person not a party to a suit cannot take an appeal in it.
On the 2d day of July, 1879, William H. Guion, claiming to have an interest in bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit of Indiana Southern Railroad Company v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company, just reported, filed his petition in that suit in the court below, asking to be admitted as a party to the suit for his own protection. This petition was denied. Guion was allowed an appeal on giving bond and security for cost, but the transcript does not show that he ever gave the bond.
The case was argued simultaneously with the case of Indiana Southern Railroad Company, and by the same counsel.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petition of Guion was for leave to appeal from a decree in a suit to which he was not a party. We decided in Ex Parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, that such an appeal could not be taken. He had applied for leave to become a party, but this leave was not given. So he is not a party to the decree from which he appeals. But if he is, he has never perfected an appeal by giving the necessary security.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
