Hirshorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, 10359.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10359.,10359. |
| Citation | 186 F.2d 1023 |
| Parties | Joseph H. HIRSHORN, On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Other Stockholders of CARBON MONOXIDE ELIMINATOR CORPORATION, One of the Defendants Herein, v. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, Carbon Monoxide Eliminator Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Catalyst Research Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Maryland, George H. Deike, William P. Yant, John F. Beggy, John T. Ryan, Jr., W. Denning Stewart, Howard Zacharias, and John T. Ryan, Jr., and John F. Beggy, Administrators of the Estate of John T. Ryan, Deceased. Paul Ginsburg, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Paul Ginsburg, pro se John B. Doyle, New York City, for plaintiff.
Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
The case is before us on a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the ground that it is taken from an interlocutory order which is not appealable. The action of the court below from which this appeal is taken was a dismissal on a motion to intervene in a shareholder's suit. The District Judge denied the motion because the petitioner had not filed a complaint setting forth the grounds for relief as required by Rule 24 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. An appeal lies from an order refusing permission to intervene, if the intervention may be claimed as of right by the person seeking intervention. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 1947, 331 U.S. 519, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646. But since this petitioner did not comply with the rule governing intervention he was not entitled to intervene as of right. Since he was not entitled to intervene of right he cannot appeal from the District Court order denying him intervention.
The motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ceramica Regiomontana, SA v. US
...view, and hold that a motion to intervene is properly denied when not accompanied by a pleading. See Hirshorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 186 F.2d 1023 (3d Cir.1951) (per curiam); Miami County Nat'l Bank v. Bancroft, 121 F.2d 921, 926 (10th Cir. 1941); Bachrach v. General Inv. Corp., 29 ......
-
Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
...88 L.Ed. 1188; Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 1941, 312 U.S. 502, 61 S.Ct. 666, 85 L.Ed. 975; Hirshorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 3d Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 1023. But in those situations where the law grants the trial court discretion to permit or deny intervention in the ......
-
Amfac Financial Corp. v. Pok Sung Shin
...Transportation Association v. Stafford, 360 F.Supp. 1057 at 1066 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1973), n. 11. Compare also, Hirshorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, 186 F.2d 1023 (3d Cir. 1951); and Usery v. Board of Public Ed., 418 F.Supp. 1037 Even if, however, we were willing to disregard appellants' f......
-
Hirshorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 10654.
...intervene made by the Behrs also was denied by the court below and on appeal that decision was affirmed by this court. 190 F.2d 675. See 186 F.2d 1023, Appeal of Ginsburg. The case is presently scheduled for trial in the court below on Monday, January 14, 1952. The plaintiffs, Hirshorn and ......