The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-01-03
THE GODDARD CASE.
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE
Further Investigation Causes the
Court to Revise the Opinion
Given Last Saturday as to
Bond for Damages.

Judge Mediation yesterday morning
made an important decision on the
petition of Mrs. Sophia Goddard for
leave to intervene in the suit OF w. A.
Clark & Brother, The National Tube
works and the California Powder
works against the Kenyon-Connell
company. 1t will be remembered that
a few minutes before the jury gave
Mrs. Goddard verdict for 5000 I'm one
of the explosion cases, the three at
tachments in the above cases were lev
led on the Kenyon-Connell stock. and
there was nothing left to satisfy the
Judgment In the Goddard case, so she
petitioned to intervene. The arguments
were made last Saturday and at that
time the court intimated that the petit
ton would be allowed to intervene
provided bond for damages and secu-
rfty for costs were given. In his opin-
ion yesterday Judge Mediation held to
the contrary, however, and In passing
on the question of the rights of third
party to intervene in a case, he said:
In passing upon the application OF the
petition In Intervention I referred to the
fact on Saturday that when the matter
was presented the counsel for plaintiffs
IN the case stated that they had no OBJ
lection to the petition in Intervention
being filed provided the rule designated
as the Vermont rule should be applied by
the court and the court should require
the intervenor to give security or file a
bond for costs in the case, and referred
to the case Of the bank against Boyce
wherein the court required Brown. the IN
tervenor, to give a bond for costs.
stated that / would require the plaintiff
In this case to to furnish a bond, follow
Ing the precedent OF that case.
Since that time / have investigated the
matter with view to determining the
question of whether or not the interview
or should be required to file a bond, and,
II so, the amount thereof.
Referring now to the case of the bank
against Boyce recall that the intervenor
Brown was a nonresident, and that that
was one of the reasons strongly urged
why the court should refuse him, as in
tervenor. to give security for COSTS and
the reason which largely influenced the
court in requiring the security to be given
in that action. The court may have been
Justified In requiring security for the
costs to be given from the intervenor in
that action from the fact that he was a
nonresident and that the statute author
lied the court upon the application of the
adverse party, to require a nonresident
to give security for costs In a sum not to
exceed $500, which may be increased to
found insufficient. However, as to that
case. IL il past and gone.
The court In this matter feels that II is
confronted with the decision of this ques-
ton under the codes and should be infiu-
enced to thoroughly examine the same
and decide 1t under the code. to the end
that IL may become a precedent hereafter.
and that this decision. when made shall
be the unvarying rule, unless 1t should
meet with Disturbance In the supreme
court.
With these considerations in view
have thoroughly examined the matter to
my own satisfaction and am prepared
without doubt to announce the decision
which must govern in this and like cases.
II Is to be observed that the statute
governing intervention and giving the
right TO each of the parties to intervene
In a proper case, imposes no terms In a
proper case the right to intervene is UNI
conditional. save that the leave of court
must be had to file the complaint. and
this leave cannot rightfully be withheld.
1 am of the opinion that under the
condition of the codes with reference 10
Intervention. and the provisions of the
codes generally with reference to this
matter and the matter of costs, that IL is
beyond the power of the court TO require
security to be given by a petitioner in in
PREVENTION as condition precedent to
granting leave to file the complaint.
while l arrive at this conclusion from
the consideration I have given the sub
ject, desire to say that have done so
somewhat reluctantly. and only because
the law has impelled ii, for feel that AN
anus OF the right to intervene might
work very grave hardship and delay. and
nasuit In costs and damages to the parties
hugating the main action; and II would
seem Just nhat party irresponsible to re-
Ia rno
quired to give security for the protection
or those the enforcement of whose rights
may be thereby delayed and who wonIa
Incur costs and loss ON account of a marty
who had made a prima facie case for in
PREVENTION I'm his complaint, having no
sufficient foundation therefor in fac ana
no 1usthleaaion I'm law and finally, failing
70 MAINTAIN MS Intervention, being allow |
ed 10 intervene.
IL would seem that an interyenor sho,,a
nof be allowed to delay the plaintirf IN |
ms recovery without placing himself In a |
POSITION or solvent responsibility T>ba
statute. however. does not provide tina,
ne shall do so, nor authorize the court ~
require IL OF him as a condition for pros- 1
ecuting his Intervention
must therefore say that cons,dana ,,o,,.
a this kind are to be addressed 10 a.
legislative assembly and are beyond the
power OF the court TO consider.
lhen again there is this considera+b o,,.
The plaintiff may be delayed In sat,sfac.
ton OF his demand the intervenor NAV
ran In his claims, or the interviewer NAV
succeed. This Is a matter which mus he
left to future adjudication: the court
cannot, at the time the petition In me-
Ventaon Is presented, determine what the
ultimate result may be
In this connection IL Is pertinent "a re-
marx that under the condition OF the 4
codes the view must be entertained that
where party brings the action. N a.
should develop 10 be a proper case In in
neryaltion by any third party, thai The
consequent delay and costs. IN anv "a /
which the party plaintiff is nut 10 -