Where the holder of a large amount of bonds, on which foreclosure proceedings were pending, asked leave to intervene, and it ap peared that the mortgage trustee was al ready a party and there was no allegation that it was not acting properly for the in terests of all bondholders, leave to intervene was refused (even for the mere purpose of requiring notice to such bondholder of suc cessive steps in the proceedings), on the ground of excessive inconvenience in the ad ministration of the cause ; Dallas, J., in the Reading Railroad foreclosure, U. S. C. C., E. D. of Pa.
The practice in respect of intervention in ordinary railroad foreclosure cases probably differs somewhat in different circuits, • and varies considerably in different cases. The question of the right to intervene by mem bers of a class already represented on the record appears to be rather a matter of dis cretion, in view of what is deemed best for the due conduct of the cause. Probably the right to be heard will not ordinarily be re fused in any case.
There would seem to be a distinction be tween the intervention of parties for the pur pose of sharing in a fund and the interven tion of parties in the course of the adminis tration of a railroad property, during re ceivership. In the latter class of cases, it would appear, from the authorities, that, un less good cause be shown for the intervention of new members of a class already repre sented on the record, they will not be -al lowed to come in, upon the ground stated by Dallas, C. J., in the Reading foreclosure,— the excessive inconvenience in the adminis tration of the cause.
In a suit to foreclose a railroad mortgage, certain persons prayed leave to intervene, alleging that the defendant company was made up by an illegal consolidation of three other companies, of one of which they were stockholders, that they never consented to the consolidation and were not bound by it nor by the mortgage, that the original com pany had no officers to defend for them, and that the consolidated company declined to set up the defence which they desired to make ; leave to intervene was refused as there was no charge of fraud or collusion, and the proper remedy was by an indepen dent suit ; Central Trust Co. v. R. Co., 48 Fed. 14.
A purchaser. at a foreclosure sale may be admitted as a party to the record and allow ed to appeal ; Blossom v. R. Co., 1 Wall. (U. S.) 655, 17 L. Ed. 673; upon failure to ask leave to come in, the court should compel him to become a party of record; Fitzgerald v. Evans, 49 Fed. 426, 1 C. C. A. 307. The
purchaser at a foreclosure sale under a junior mortgage who takes subject to a prior mortgage, will be made a party to proceed ings to foreclose such prior mortgage; Far mers' Loan & Trust Co. v. R. Co., 44 Fed. 115. Parties given leave to intervene in an equity suit after a decree pro confesso, have a right of appeal from a decree affecting their rights, and the supreme court will en force this right by a mandamus; Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 24 L. Ed. 123. See Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684, 4 Sup. Ct. 638, 28 L. Ed. 559.
When a creditor's bill in equity is prop erly removed from a state court to a federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship, the jurisdiction of the latter is not ousted by admitting in the circuit court as co-plain tiffs other creditors who are citizens of the same state as the defendants ; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed; 329.
A court of the United States sitting as a court of law, has an equitable power over its own process to prevent abuse, oppression and injustice ; which power may be invoked by a stranger to the litigation as incident to the jurisdiction already vested, and with out regard to his own citizenship ; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 379, 31 L. Ed. 374.
When property in the possession of a third person claiming ownership, is attach ed on mesne process issuing out of the Unit ed States circuit court, as the property of a defendant and citizen of the same state as the person claiming it, such person may seek redress in the circuit court by ancillary pro ceedings; as, for instance, if the original proceeding is in equity, by a petition pro interesse suo, or by ancillary bill, or by sum mary motion, according to circumstances; or, if it is at common law, by a summary motion or by a proceeding in the nature of an interpleader ; or, if proceedings author ized by statutes of the state afford an ade quate remedy, by adopting them as part of the practice of the court; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 4 Sup. Ct. 27, 28 L. Ed. 145. Where, in equity, an execution is issued and a levy and sale made of certain lands, a third party claiming to be the real owner cannot intervene for the purpose of moving to set aside the execution when there is no privity of estate between him and the de fendant in the execution; Ex parte Mensing, 55 Fed. 17.