Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-06

claim and preventing the recovery OF a
Judgment thereon. TIE case of Speyer w.
Shmels & Co.. 81 Cal. 2S1. cited by appellant,
gives no countenance to any different doctrine.
There the question arose between the prior and
subsequent attaching creditors of common in
solvent debtor The subsequent attaching
creditors were allowed to intervene in the ac-
ton between the debtor firm, Shmels d Co.,
and Speyer, the first attaching creditor, for the
sole purpose OF securing postponement OF
the prior lien which he had acquired under his
attachment, and contesting the validity of his
claim to that end, ON the ground Of its hcti-
tious character. and that it was being prosecuted
by collision between plaintiff and defendants
with intent to defraud the bona fde cred
itors of the latter, including the said
interyenors. The principle of this decision Is
in entire harmony with the doctrine held IN
Howe VS.. vol. W. c. Is Cal. sup. In case at
bar the proposed complaint of appellant dis
closes no interest in the matter In litigation
between the original parties to the action,
| such as entities him to intervene therein. The
| sole object of the action is to reform certain
| powers of attorney from defendants to one
| Sharpe authorizing the sale and conveyance OF a
certain tract of land, and also the deed OF con-
veyance given to plaintiff under such powers,
in respect to an alleged misdescription of the
| premises intended to be conveyed, which oc-
and in the deed through mu-
| tual mistake and inadvertance as executed
they related to the east half instead of the west
half of certain quarter section, as was intend
/ ed The reformation of these instruments so
| as to conform to the actual agreement and I'M
derstanding of the parties thereto was the only
/ purpose of the litigation in the action. the con-
troversy respected the validity Of no title nor
i possession of any land. 1t simply involved the
inquiry whether the land intended to have been
described in the instruments in question was
in fact the east or the west half of the quartei
IN t}on acf11 nj
the parties thereto, and if there was an error
i in the description whether it occurrec
through mutual mistake and inadvertance. II
the determination of these questions the claim
of title and position made by the intervenor tt
the land in question under the tax sale, ant
the alleged attempted redemption thereof b,
the plaintiff are wholly Irrelevant matters en-
titled to no consideration, and incapable OF be
ing directly affected by any judgment that cal
be rightfully rendered in the action assuming
the facts to be as stated in the lutervenor
complaint and that neither of the original pal
ties to the action have any lawful title or RICH
of possession to the lands. Still the plaintiff
entitled, of right, upon defendants defau!
; to his judgment reforming the erroneousl
made instruments. The intervenor sets up n
: claim under either of the parties to the actio
neither does he connect himself as party G
privy to any of the conveyances or lnstrr
ments sought to be Connected, and 1t Is n
concern of his whether the alleged mistake
therein are connected or not, as both he an
his alleged title are utter strangers thereto
whatever judgment may be rendered betwee
the original parties the action il is clear thu
E he will not derive any immediate gain or SUITE
; any loss by its direct legal operation an
4 effect. Such being the case he has :, right
: a standing in court to be heard in such actio
9 in respect to his alleged claim, and the ord
appealed from was properly granted. The o
! der in no way invoices the merits of the actic
or any part thereof-as we'll might it be elaine
II that an order prohibiting him from intervene
q q in the action for the purpose of enforcing
: !, claim against one of the parties thereto foun
v v ed upon personal tort or upon pronisso
Z note, adjudication upon any of h
. rights in respect to such action.
: : 1t sim ply determines that upon the alleg'
facts he is an utter stranger to the matter
Z controversy, and hence has no rig
;. to interfere in the litigation bearing upc
{ the appealable character eff the order as invol
s ing the merits (see st. John US. West. Ho
). Pr. Rep. 500 where question somewhat an;
= ogous is discussed.
e The appeal INST be dismissed. CORNELL, j.