Horwitz v. Gross

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Horwitz v. Gross

97 F. 991, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 7, 1899

DocketNo. 45

StatusPublished

This text of 97 F. 991 (Horwitz v. Gross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horwitz v. Gross, 97 F. 991, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359 (circtedpa 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

McPHERSON, District Judge.

I think this motion must prevail. Neither the interest oí airs. Maria Horwitz, nor of her children, nor of Mrs. Osier,— whether such interest be vested or contingent, — will be affected by the decree that is now sought for, and I am unable, therefore, to regard them as necessary parties. It might, perhaps, be proper to join them all, or some of them, at least; but, as such joinder would deprive the court of jurisdiction, it should not be made. The complainants will bo allowed to go on with the suit against the present defendant alone. If he should be removed from the trust that he now holds for the complainants, and if this court, should undertake to appoint his successor, it may then be necessary to give notice to some, or all, of (he parties having vested or contingent interests in remainder, in order that they may be heard concerning the appointment. But this is a separate matter, and need not now be considered. The plea is adjudged insufficient, and the defendant is directed to answer the bill within 20 days.

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

McPHERSON, District Judge.

I think this motion must prevail. Neither the interest oí airs. Maria Horwitz, nor of her children, nor of Mrs. Osier,— whether such interest be vested or contingent, — will be affected by the decree that is now sought for, and I am unable, therefore, to regard them as necessary parties. It might, perhaps, be proper to join them all, or some of them, at least; but, as such joinder would deprive the court of jurisdiction, it should not be made. The complainants will bo allowed to go on with the suit against the present defendant alone. If he should be removed from the trust that he now holds for the complainants, and if this court, should undertake to appoint his successor, it may then be necessary to give notice to some, or all, of (he parties having vested or contingent interests in remainder, in order that they may be heard concerning the appointment. But this is a separate matter, and need not now be considered. The plea is adjudged insufficient, and the defendant is directed to answer the bill within 20 days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 F. 991, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horwitz-v-gross-circtedpa-1899.