Ex parte In the Matter of the Application of the Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York, Petitioner. No. ___, Original
| Citation | 32 S.Ct. 833,222 U.S. 578,56 L.Ed. 323 |
| Parties | EX PARTE; IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Petitioner. No. ___, Original |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1911 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 578-580 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Felix H. Levy and Benjamin N. Cordozo for petitioner.
The Attorney General in opposition.
Leave to file petition denied.
1. One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530, 13 L. ed. 245; Indiana Southern R. Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. 109 U. S. 168, 27 L. ed. 895, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108; Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578, 26 L. ed. 856.
2. The action of the court below in refusing to permit the movers to become parties to the record is not susceptible of being reviewed by this court on appeal, or indirectly, under the circumstances here disclosed, by the writ of mandamus. Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 15, 24 L. ed. 49; and see Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 44 L. ed. 782, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 636.
3. The merely general nature and character of the interest which the movers allege they have in the papers here filed is not, in any event, of such a character as to authorize them in this proceeding to assail the action of the court below. This is more obvious in this case since the act of the court which is assailed has been accepted by those who are parties to the record. United States v. Union P. R. Co. 105 U. S. 263, 26 L. ed. 1021; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500, 33 L. ed. 998, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of the State of California v. United States
...Ed. 49; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 1900, 177 U.S. 311, 20 S.Ct. 636, 44 L.Ed. 782; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 1911, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323; In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 1914, 231 U.S. 646, 34 S.Ct. 258, 58 L.Ed. 416; City of New York v. Consol......
-
State of Washington v. United States
...v. Peugh's Lessee, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 394, 15 L.Ed. 432; Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14, 22, 24 L.Ed. 49; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323; In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646, 34 S.Ct. 258, 58 L.Ed. 416; City of New York v. Consolidated ......
-
Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...of a case or controversy because they cannot petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. See Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323 (1911). In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252 (1946), however, a congressional ac......
-
United States v. Stoerr
...not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal therefrom.”) (citations omitted); In re Leaf Tobacco Bd. of Trade, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323 (1911) (“One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom.”) (citations omitte......