Case Name: BRITTON v. BOHDE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-03-05
Citations: 32 N.Y.S. 882
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRITTON v. BOHDE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 32
Pages: 882–882

Head Matter:
BRITTON v. BOHDE et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
March 5, 1895.)
Parties—Intervention—Action at Law.
In an action at law to recover money alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiff, the fact that a third person is entitled to the money sued for gives such third person no right to intervene.
Appeal from city court of Mount Vernon.
Action by Charles F. Britton against Angeline Bohde to recover $800 alleged to be due on a contract. The New York Building Loan Banking Company applied to be made a party defendant, on the ground that it was entitled to the money sued for. The motion was denied, and said company appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.
Booraem, Hamilton, Bickett & Ransom (William H. Hamilton and Henry R. Richards, of counsel), for appellant, New York Building Loan Banking Company.
Frank M. Buck, for respondents.

Opinion:
CULLEN, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the city court -of Mount Vernon denying the application of the appellant to be made a defendant in the action. The action is to recover the sum of $800, alleged to be due from the-defendant on account of a mortgage executed by the plaintiff to her. The appellant seeks to intervene on the ground that this sum of money really belongs to it. We think that this fact, if true, gave the appellant no right to intervene. If the plaintiff is not the owner of the claim, he will be defeated in this action. But, even if he should wrongly succeed therein, the appellant will nowise be injured. If it has a valid claim against the defendant, it may sue for it, and the recovery in this action will nowise bar its claim. This action is an action at law, and it is settled by authority that in such actions the plaintiff has the privilege of determining what parties he will proceed against, and that other parties cannot intrude themselves into the action against his will. Chapman v. Forbes, 123 N. Y. 532, 26 N. E. 3. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.