Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Guion v. Liverpool, London, & Globe Insurance

Guion v. Liverpool, London, & Globe Ins., 109 U.S. 173 (1883)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1883-11-05
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice 'Waite, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, said: The petition of Guión was for leave to appeal from a decree in a suit to which hé 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 ivas not given.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Guion v. Liverpool, London, & Globe Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions
GUION v. LIV. LON. GLOBE INS. CO.,109 U.S. 173(1883)
3 S.Ct. 108
GUIONv. LIVERPOOL, LONDON, AND GLOBE INSURANCE CO.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
INDIANA.
Argued October 15th, 1883.
Decided November 5th, 1883.
Appeal. A person not a party in a suit cannot take an appeal in it.
On the 2d July, 1879, William H. Guion, claiming to have an interest in the bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit ofThe Indiana Southern RailroadCompanyv.The 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 ofTheIndiana Southern Railroad Company, and by the same counsel.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, said:
The petition of Guion was for leave to appeal from a decree in a suit to which he was not a party. We decided inEx parteCutting,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.Page 174