Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 210 (1915)
Syllabus
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
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.
Opinions
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. Page 236 U. S. 211 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.
Search This Case