104 U.S. 578 - Ex parte Cockcroft — 104 U.S. 578

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Karcher v. May (1987), Grant v. United States (1913)

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1A person cannot appeal from a decree rendered in a suit whereto he was no* a party.

¶2Petition for a writ of mandamus.

¶3The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4Mr. William JE. Earle for the petitioner.

¶5There was no opposing counsel.-

¶6Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8This' is a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the Circuit United States · Case Law">Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina to allow an appeal by the petitioner from an order of the court entered on the 7th of October, 1881, confirming a sale of a railroad made pursuant to a decree filed on the 25th of September, 1880, in the suit of Calvin, Claflin, and Others v. The South Carolina Railroad Company and Others. The petitioner was not a party to the suit, neither does it appear that he ever asked to be made a party. • He is not the holder of any of the bonds that by the decree under which the sale was made are 'entitled to a distributive share of the proceeds. Unless the property should bring at another sale enough to satisfy the mortgages and leave the balance for distribution among the general creditors of the company, he can get no advantage from setting aside the sale which has already been made. In his showing to the Circuit Court lie certainly did not make it appear that he had any real interest in the controversy. He was evidently heard -as a matter of favor, and not because he had any right to intervene. Before' confirming the sale the court seemed desirous of ascertaining whether, under all the circumstances, in the exercise of its judicial discretion such an order ought to be made. For this purpose it was willing to consider the affidavits produced by .the petitioner. This seems to have been done out of abundant caution, nob because it was necessary in law.

¶9Inasmuch, therefore, as the petitioner was not made a party *579to the suit, either by an express order of the court' to that effect, or by being treated as such, his application for an _ap: .peal was properly denied. This case cannot be distinguished in principle from Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14.

¶10Motion denied.