The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-06-19

Of questions before him in the action
Of Newton J. Catrow against c., u.
q NJ i'm which Catrow asks for APP
pointment Of a receiver for the road.
Actions to upset the appointment Of
ELI NJ. West. of Columbus, as receiver
for the road, wero started in the local
courts some time arc and many ofT-
cial papers have been fled. The qucs-
tion decided today by Judge Babst,was
as to the right of tn Columbus. Rail-
way and Light company and the New
York Coal company to file interven-
| ing petitions. for the sole purpose
Of objecting to this court taking iuris-
diction of the matter.
The motion was overruled
and counsel given further op-
| portunity to get together,
before further orders are made in the
case. General r. Il. Finley, of Blu
cyrus, representing rome 100000 of
stock and asking for a receiver. ask
ed the courts permission to substitute
copies of the original petition and
answer in the Catrow case. These
papers have been removed from the
| Marion county files and taken to Co
umbus. This permission was granted
and MIR. Finley will nie these copies
within "a short time
Judge Babsts opinion In the matter
WIS extremely interesting to the legal
| fraternity After it was over, and
although the decision was adverse to
| him. Nttorncy Thomas j. Heating.
representing the Light and Coal COM
panies, personally congratulated the
court and admitted tn justice Of the
ruling.
Judge Pphst's opinion follows:
"'rhe question submitted is ms to the
right Of the Columbus, Railway and
| Light company To intervene I'm this
case. for the purpose Of denying the
| jurisdiction OF tie court. (.nd. SO.
To- the right OF other defendants to
intervene and answer. ..
,""As 10 the latter parties. there can
| he no question IS 10 thoir right 60 be
made parties upon their own appica-
tIon and answer Tho serious question
Is as to the first This question has
been eXhaustively argued by counsel,
and we are free Ia confess, that with
many pressing duties engaging our
attention we have not examined all
Of the cases cited hut have looked
| into sufficient cf them To enable us
to reach n conclusion.
"rhe code points out who must l'
parties and who mry he made plr-
ties. They must have an interest adj
verse to the plaintiff, or such ns n
necessary to q determination of the
| question involved. Another provision
provides that when the rights Of the
rarties clnnot be determined without
! the presence Of other parties the
! court may order them TO he brought
In etc
These sections construed. neverthe-
less hinge upon a fac;-that Of inter
est In the issues involved. If per-
son has nm Interest ne is necessary
party.
'In tra matter before us the Column
bus Railway ana Light company Is
not party, and its plea does not
| disclose that It has an interest in the
| issues involved in the pending suit.
So. manifcstly, ii is not a necessary
party, and To Intervene IN a con-
| troversy between other contending
parties the interviewer must exhibit to
! the court that it is lnterested-has
rights to protect-Or an interest ad-
verse To the plaintiir
"The paper presented by the Columv
bus Railway ana Light company for
| intervention is styled a plea" and is
verified. our civil code provides what
shall constitute the pleadings in civil
actions The plea presented Is not
, "A petition, neither is II an answer
or demurrer, and we RAN TO find that
In form or substances 1t conforms to
any Of the pleadings allowed by the
code. If II did, Notwithstanding its
designation, IT could be recognized.
"The plea Is a protest against this
court taking jurisdiction of this cause
of action, and granting relief To ten
defendant If the court has iuris-
dictlon. the protest must fail-for
having jurisdiction It win not be nee
essary to assume or take Il; and so,
| too. il must follow that II this court
! has Jurisdiction, the parties win be
entitled to the relief demanded, pro-
Vided of course that under the evil
! dence they establish such right II
must De kept I'm mind that the inter-
Vener is not "a party-and refuses 10
, become party yet does the plea
! Show any interest I'm the case, but
| contents itself with the statement that
| there Is pending in another court
causa of action between the same
, parties involving the same questions,
! This plea, i'm the opinion Of the court
! Is not such one as can or does
raise the question Of the jurisdiction
of this court in the cause in question:
list Becausn it is not such plead
| ing as is required by the civil code.
end. Because the party presenting
the plea does not appear to have any
interest I'm the case in which 1t seeks
To intervene,
"If we are right In our conclusions
the question Of Jurisdiction Is not be-
| fore u.s. But let ms assume that II
could be so rased-the records of this
! court show that in the person OF
another Judge this court took juris-
diction.-,and there is nothing of record
10 show that II was by It's act, or the
acts of the parties dvested.
y I'VE do not propose TO discuss any
of the many questions which have