82 U.S. 8 - Railroad v. Johnson — 82 U.S. 8

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1930

2 federal appellate · 2 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.

¶1Where a mortgagee on a bill of foreclosure filed in an inferior State court against his mortgagor and certain trustees holding collateral securities, obtains in that court a decree against the mortgagor personally and against the trustees as trustees, and the mortgagor alone appeals to the Supreme Court of the State, to which, on affirmance of the decree, he alone takes a writ of error here, it is no ground to dismiss the writ that the trustees are not joined with him as plaintiffs in error in this court.

¶2On motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut.

¶3Johnson held bonds of the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company, secured by mortgage on the road and by the transfer of certain stock to Huntington and Nichols, as trustees. The bonds were not paid at maturity, and Johnson filed a petition in equity in the Superior Court of New London County, Connecticut, praying that the mortgage be foreclosed, and sale ordered of the stock. In that suit Huntington and Nichols were summoned, and a decree was given against them as trustees, as well as against the railroad company as mortgagors. From that decree the company alone appealed to the Supreme Court of the State. The decree below having been affirmed in that court, the railroad company alone brought the case here by writ of error.

¶4Johnson now moved to dismiss the writ on the ground that Huntington and Nichols were not joined with the railroad company'as plaintiffs.

¶5Mr. George Pratt, in support of the motion:

¶6A writ of error must be brought in the names of all the parties against whom the judgment to be reviewed is given.* This is a substantial defect in the appeal, and can be taken advantage of at any time before judgment.

¶7Mr. J. Halsey, contra.

¶9 *9The CHIEF JUSTICE:

¶10Huntington and Nichols had no interest in the controversy, and did not appeal to the Supreme Court. The only party to the decree of that court was the railroad company, and it is the decree of that court which the writ of error seeks to review. It was, therefore, properly brought in the name of the railroad company alone. The motion to dismiss must be

¶11Denied.