On a creditors' bill, judgment creditors who choose to intervene may share ratably with complainants in the proceeds of a sale of the property, even if some do not inter vene until after the decree of sale; George v. Ry. Co, 44 Fed. 117. The practice of permitting judgment creditors to come in and make themselves parties to a creditors' bill is well settled; Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 18 L. Ed. 604.
Stockholders of a corporation who have been allowed to put in answers in the name of the corporation cannot be regarded as an swering for the corporation itself. In a spe cial ease, however, where there is an allega tion that the directors fraudulently refused to attend to the interests of the corporation, equity may allow a stockholder to become a party defendant for the protection of his own interest and that of such other stockhold ers as may join him in the defence; Bron son v. R. Co., 2 Wall. (U. S.) 283, 17 L. Ed. 725. Where any fraud has been perpetrated by the directors of a company by which the interests of the stockholders are affected, the stockholders have a right to come in as parties to a suit against the company and ask that their property shall be relieved from the effect of such fraud ; Bayliss v. Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 193, Fed. Cas. No. 1,140.
The state can intervene in proceedings to foreclose a railroad mortgage only where it is entitled as a bond or lien holder to share in the proceeds of a sale, or where public interests are at stake which are seriously threatened by the proposed disposition of the property. An intervening petition filed by a state in railroad foreclosure proceed ings alleging that bonds and the mortgage securing them were void, and that the rail road company, by collusion and neglect to defend, was about to allow judgment to go against it by default, that the company in consideration of large land grants from the state had agreed to maintain low rates of transportation, which, by foreclosure, would be increased, gives nO right of intervention, especially where neither the charter of the company nor any subsquent legislation showed any such contract as the one alleged; State v. Trust Co., 81 Tex. 530, 17 S. W. 60. Permission will not be granted to a state to intervene for the stay of the sale of a rail road under foreclosure proceedings; Ander son v. R. Co., 2 Woods 628, Fed. Cas. No.
358.
In a controversy between two states in relation to the boundary line between them, the attorney-general of the United States may appear on behalf of the United States and adduce evidence, though he does not thereby become a party in the technical sense of the word, and no judgment will be enter ed for or against the United States; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. (U. S.) 478, 15 L. Ed. 181.
A petition to intervene need not be as for mal as a bill of complaint, yet it should ex hibit all the material facts relied on, em bodying so niuch of the record in the origi nal suit as is essential, and proceedings taken therein which would fortify the right of the intervener should be incorporated in the pe tition by amendment, and if this is not done, such proceedings cannot be noticed on a de murrer to the petition; Empire Distilling Co. v. MeNulta, 77 Fed. 700, 23 C. C. A. 415.
In bills brought on behalf of a class, an intervening member of the class will ordi narily be joined as a plaintiff and this will not generally deprive the court of jurisdic tion; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329. If there should be any danger that it would, he may be joined as a defendant or, if he intends to act in hostility to the original complainant, the court may make him a defendant ; 1 Fost. Fed. Prac. § 201; Brown v. Steamship Co., 5 Blatchf. 525, Fed. Cas. No. 2,025; Forbes v. R. Co., 2 Woods 323, Fed. Cas. No. 4,920.
A person claiming a right to share in a fund or claiming a right to property in the hands of a receiver is generally allowed to intervene pro interesse &no; 1 Fost. Fed. Pr. § 201.
One who, in an action at law, has been de nied the right to intervene, because of his status, cannot afterwards maintain a bill in equity in the same court to enjoin the proceedings and to be permitted to inter vene; McDonald v. Seligman, 81 Fed. 753. But where leave to Intervene in an equity case is asked and refused, it is not a deter mination of the merits, but the petitioner is at full liberty to assert his rights in any other appropriate form of proceedings; Cred its Commutation Co. v. U. S., 177 U. S. 311, 20 Sup. Ct. 636, 44 L. Ed. 782.