Richfield Oil Co. v. Sawtelle

Ninth Circuit

Richfield Oil Co. v. Sawtelle

279 F. 851, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1929

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1921

DocketNo. 3789

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 F. 851 (Richfield Oil Co. v. Sawtelle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richfield Oil Co. v. Sawtelle, 279 F. 851, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1929 (9th Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURTAM.

On application for writ of mandamus to require the District Court to allow petitioner to intervene in a suit brought by the Western Machinery Company against one Post and the Valley [852]*852Farms Water Company to establish a lien and to appoint a receiver. 'Ihe receiver was appointed. Petitioner sets up that it sold materials to the Valley Farms Company and unless it can intervene its rights to participate with other creditors will be lost. The court below denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of laches and had refused to intervene in subordination of the propriety of the main proceeding, but had announced its purpose to challenge the jurisdiction o: the court, and because the petitioner was not a party to the main suit. The court denied an appeal from the order denying the application to intervene on the ground that such order is not appealable.

[1] We hold that this court is without jurisdiction to grant the petitioner leave to intervene.

[2] But after consideration of the petition and answer, and other records,'we conclude that the present application should be regarded as broad enough to malee it proper to issue the writ directing the District Court to allow the appeal from the order denying petition for leave to intervene .and to file its answer in intervention.

The writ will therefore issue for the limited purpose indicated. United States v. Philips, Judge, 107 Fed. 824, 46 C. C. A. 660.

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

PER CURTAM.

On application for writ of mandamus to require the District Court to allow petitioner to intervene in a suit brought by the Western Machinery Company against one Post and the Valley [852]*852Farms Water Company to establish a lien and to appoint a receiver. 'Ihe receiver was appointed. Petitioner sets up that it sold materials to the Valley Farms Company and unless it can intervene its rights to participate with other creditors will be lost. The court below denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of laches and had refused to intervene in subordination of the propriety of the main proceeding, but had announced its purpose to challenge the jurisdiction o: the court, and because the petitioner was not a party to the main suit. The court denied an appeal from the order denying the application to intervene on the ground that such order is not appealable.

[1] We hold that this court is without jurisdiction to grant the petitioner leave to intervene.

[2] But after consideration of the petition and answer, and other records,'we conclude that the present application should be regarded as broad enough to malee it proper to issue the writ directing the District Court to allow the appeal from the order denying petition for leave to intervene .and to file its answer in intervention.

The writ will therefore issue for the limited purpose indicated. United States v. Philips, Judge, 107 Fed. 824, 46 C. C. A. 660.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F. 851, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richfield-oil-co-v-sawtelle-ca9-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack