Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-12-01
THE COURTS.
Ssspre,,se Court.


James Chosen and E. E. Danforth, respond.
ents, vs. W. W. Allen, appellant. Submitted
on briefs.
The State of Minnesota, er rel, John Gun.
ningham ct ais, REALTORS, vs.. The Board OF
Public Works of the city of st. Paul. Clerks
taxation of costs affirmed.
The State of Minnesota es rel. J. W. Cum
ningham. ct al, REALTORS, VS.. The District
Court of Ramsey county, respondent. Ar
gued and submitted.
John c. Oswald, respondent, We. the Mime.
apolis & Northwestern Railroad company.
Argued and submitted.
Wm. L. Mintzer, respondent. W. the village
of Rush City, appellant. Continued.
VIM. L. Mintzer, respondent, VI. the village
of Rush City, appellant. Continued.
Chas. L. Harsh, respondent, Va. Daniel
McNeill ct al. appellant. Continued.
Robertson Howard, Esq, was admitted to
practice.
Adjourned sine die.
Jonathan Lewis, appellant, vs.. Peter Lewis,
Albert Lewis and VIM. George, defendants. and
Norman 2. Harwood, ct ais. interyenors.
Syllabus-The interest which entities q
party to intervene in an action pending be.
tween other parties under general statutes OF
1878, chapter 68, section 1871, must be In the
matter in litigation in the court as originally
brought and of such direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain
or lose by the direct legal operation and effect
of the Judgment thereon.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover Of the
defendants, as the makers of certain promlssory
notes, the amount thereof, ard writ OF at
tachment was issued therein on his applica.
ton, by virtue of which certain
personal property belonging to two Of
the defendants was seized. Afterwards
and before Judgment the intervenors fled in
the action their joint complaint in interven-
ton setting up separate claims and demands
against such two defendants for goods sold
and delivered to them. After setting up the
nature and amount of their respective claims,
thew alleged that the notes sued on by the
plaintiff we're without considera ton, and were
given in pursuance Of fraudulent conspiracy
between the PLAINTIFF to cheat and defraud
their creditors, the intervenOrH, and that the
plaintiffs action was commenced, and the
writ of attachment procured and their prop
erty seized Hereunder in furtherance OF such
conspiracy, that the defendants whose proper
ty was 80 attached, that no other property OK
cept the attached property, and that was mad
TO nav the plaintiffs demands; that the inter-
venors had each commenced action on their
several demands against such defendants, and
had caused writs OF attachment to be issued in
their several actions and to be executed upon
the same property attached by the plaintiff,
these attachments being subsequent to his in
point of time, and praying that the plaintih's
attachment be postponed to that Of the inter-
venOrs.
Held, That the complaint Of the interyenors
did not disclose such an intent in the subject
matter of the suit as to entitle them to inter-
yepe, and the plsintiff's motion to dismiss the
same should, the, efore, have been granted.
Order reversed, and cause lemanded to the
court below with instructions to dismiss the
complaint in Intervention and all proceedings
thereon, CLARK, j.