McGraw v. Mott

Fourth Circuit

McGraw v. Mott

162 F. 1006, 87 C.C.A. 678, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 1908

DocketNo. 840

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 F. 1006 (McGraw v. Mott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGraw v. Mott, 162 F. 1006, 87 C.C.A. 678, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4522 (4th Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the court below of June 16, 1908, by which the appellant, McGraw, was dismissed as a party to this suit, should not have been allowed. In reaching this conclusion, we find that the order of May 13, 1898, permitting McGraw to intervene and making him a defendant, was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The allegations contained in the petition filed by him presented such a case as justified a court of equity in permitting him to intervene, and rendered it unnecessary for him to first apply to the stockholders or board of directors of the defendant corporation for the relief he now seeks by his intervention. It follows that the decree complained' of will he sot aside, and that, this cause will be remanded, with directions that leave be given the Buckhom Portland Cement Company and Abram C. Mott to answer appellant’s petition, that the case be matured for final hearing at the earliest day practical with proper judicial proceedings, and for such further action as under the circumstances may be proper.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of the court below of June 16, 1908, by which the appellant, McGraw, was dismissed as a party to this suit, should not have been allowed. In reaching this conclusion, we find that the order of May 13, 1898, permitting McGraw to intervene and making him a defendant, was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The allegations contained in the petition filed by him presented such a case as justified a court of equity in permitting him to intervene, and rendered it unnecessary for him to first apply to the stockholders or board of directors of the defendant corporation for the relief he now seeks by his intervention. It follows that the decree complained' of will he sot aside, and that, this cause will be remanded, with directions that leave be given the Buckhom Portland Cement Company and Abram C. Mott to answer appellant’s petition, that the case be matured for final hearing at the earliest day practical with proper judicial proceedings, and for such further action as under the circumstances may be proper.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. 1006, 87 C.C.A. 678, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgraw-v-mott-ca4-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack