INTERVENTION (Lat. intervenio, to come between or among). The admission, by leave of the court, of a person not an original par ty to pending legal proceedings, by which', such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.
Persons who are not parties to a suit can not in general file a petition therein for a stay of proceedings or any other cause ; the remedy is by original bill. Exceptions are: where the pleadings contain scandal against a stranger, or where a stranger purchases the subject of litigation pending the suit, and the like; creditors are allowed to prove debts and persons belonging to a class on whose behalf the suit is brought are regard ed as quasi parties and, of course, may have a standing in court ; per Bradley, J., in And erson v. R. Co., 2 Woods 628, Fed. Cas. No. 358. Third persons may be driven to inter vene for their rights in equity if those rights are to be affected, and if at the hearing the court would be compelled to notice their ab sence and order the case to stand over until they were brought in; Carter v. City of New Orleans, 19 Fed. 659. See 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 287 ; Story, Eq. Pl. § 220. It is not necessa ry to the right of intervention, in order to participate in a trust fund in the custody of the law, that the intervenor should first ob tain judgment at law or should have any lien upon the fund. Intervention will be granted, after a foreclosure decree against a railroad company, to unsecured notehold ers who pray to have their debts established as equitable liens upon the property and funds of the company paramount to the lien of the mortgage; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. R. Co., 21 Fed. 264. A holder of railroad bonds secured by a mortgage under fore closure has an interest in the amount of the trustee's compensation, which entitles him to intervene and to contest it and to appeal from an adverse decision; Williams v. Mor gan, 111 U. S. 684, 4 Sup. Ct. 638, 28 L. Ed. 559. Where a part of a canal was sold and the fund brought into court, it was held that the contractor who built the canal could in tervene for the protection of his rights ei ther upon the fund or against the purchaser ; French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 26 L. Ed. 951. Bondholders in a foreclosure suit brought by the trustee of the mortgage are quasi parties and may be heard for the protection of their interests ; Fidelity Trust & Safety-Vault Co.
v. R. •o., 53 Fed. 850.
If one who is a necessary party to a case in a state court is wrongfully excluded and denied leave to file a proper cross bill and answer and to present a motion for removal to the federal court, he will be treated by the latter court as if a party ; Hack v. R.
Co., 23 Fed. 356. The case of Iowa Home stead Co. v. R. Co., 8 Fed. 97, was based on special facts.
Where a suit in equity was properly insti tuted against a railroad company by a stock holder, a bondholder, and the trustees for the bondholders named in the land grant mort gages of the company, and the bill charged that the officers of the company were squand ering its property, and the purpose of the suit was the preservation and administration of the assets of the company, and a decree pro confess° had been entered and a receiver appointed, individual stockholders were not permitted to intervene and file a cross bill on a general charge of fraud and collusion on the part of the receiver and erroneous judgment on the part of the court in making the order referred to. In such a suit, it is not the proper practice to allow individual stockholders to intervene to set aside the proceedings or to interpose obstacles to the progress of the suit. Such stockholders may come in to take the benefit of the proceedings and decree, but not to oppose and nullify them. Rival creditors by proceedings before the master may fix the priority of their re spective liens, and creditors or stockholders may contest the validity of the claims of oth er creditors and stockholders, but all in sub ordination to the general object of the suit, to obtain an administration of the compa ny's assets and property. Persons will not be allowed to intervene as general defend ants unless they show that they have an in terest in the results as stockholders, and are also able to show fraud and collusion be tween the plaintiff in the suit and the of ficers of the company ; per Bradley, J., in Forbes v. R. Co., 2 Wood, 323, Fed. Cas. No. 4,926. In Skiddy v. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 320, Fed. Casa No. 12,922, the Amsterdam Bond holders' Committee, representing a very large number of bonds, filed a petition setting out the grounds for disapproving their trustees management of the foreclosure suit, and praying intervention, but leave to intervene was denied ; Clyde v. R. Co., 55 Fed. 448.