Skip to content


Guion Vs. Liverpool, London and Globe Ins. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number109 U.S. 173
AppellantGuion
RespondentLiverpool, London and Globe Ins. Co.
Excerpt:
guion v. liverpool, london & globe ins. co. - 109 u.s. 173 (1883) u.s. supreme court guion v. liverpool, london & globe ins. co., 109 u.s. 173 (1883) guion v. liverpool, london & globe insurance company argued october 15, 1883 decided november 5, 1883 109 u.s. 173 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of indiana syllabus a person not a party to a suit cannot take an appeal in it. on the 2d day of july, 1879, william h. guion, claiming to have an interest in bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit of indiana southern railroad company v. liverpool, london & globe insurance company, just reported, filed his petition in that suit in the court below,.....
Judgment:
Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co. - 109 U.S. 173 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 173 (1883)

Guion v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company

Argued October 15, 1883

Decided November 5, 1883

109 U.S. 173

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Syllabus

A person not a party to a suit cannot take an appeal in it.

On the 2d day of July, 1879, William H. Guion, claiming to have an interest in bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit of Indiana Southern Railroad Company v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company, just reported, filed his petition in that suit in the court below, asking to be admitted as a party to the suit for his own protection. This petition was denied. Guion was allowed an appeal on giving bond and security for cost, but the transcript does not show that he ever gave the bond.

The case was argued simultaneously with the case of Indiana Southern Railroad Company, and by the same counsel.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petition of Guion was for leave to appeal from a decree in a suit to which he was not a party. We decided in Ex Parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14 , that such an appeal could not be taken. He had applied for leave to become a party, but this leave was not given. So he is not a party to the decree from which he appeals. But if he is, he has never perfected an appeal by giving the necessary security.

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //