Harry Bros. v. Yaryan Naval Stores Co.

Fifth Circuit

Harry Bros. v. Yaryan Naval Stores Co.

219 F. 884, 135 C.C.A. 454, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1682

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 25, 1915·No. No. 2687·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The writ of error in this case challenges the correctness of the order, made by the District Court, dismissing the plea of intervention interposed by the Harry Bros. Company in an equitable proceeding therein pending. No question of jurisdiction has been raised, and on the argument counsel for the parties treated the questions discussed as properly here for adjudication.

The proper mode, however, of reviewing questions arising in equity causes is by appeal, and where that mode is not followed there is no jurisdiction in the appellate court. And this want of jurisdiction cannot be waived, nor can jurisdiction be conferred by consent of parties. Four Hundred and Forty Three Cans of Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174; Leo Lung On v. United States, 159 Fed. 125, 86 C. C. A. 513; United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414, 26 L. Ed. 1077. See, also, United States v. Hudson, etc., Co., 200 Fed. 956, 119 C. C. A. 293.

The writ of error should therefore be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The writ of error in this case challenges the correctness of the order, made by the District Court, dismissing the plea of intervention interposed by the Harry Bros. Company in an equitable proceeding therein pending. No question of jurisdiction has been raised, and on the argument counsel for the parties treated the questions discussed as properly here for adjudication.

The proper mode, however, of reviewing questions arising in equity causes is by appeal, and where that mode is not followed there is no jurisdiction in the appellate court. And this want of jurisdiction cannot be waived, nor can jurisdiction be conferred by consent of parties. Four Hundred and Forty Three Cans of Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174; Leo Lung On v. United States, 159 Fed. 125, 86 C. C. A. 513; United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414, 26 L. Ed. 1077. See, also, United States v. Hudson, etc., Co., 200 Fed. 956, 119 C. C. A. 293.

The writ of error should therefore be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Harry Bros. v. Yaryan Naval Stores Co., 219 F. 884, 135 C.C.A. 454, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1682 (5th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

219 F. 884 (Harry Bros. v. Yaryan Naval Stores Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related