is an exception to this rule; and in an extraordinary case a stayorder might perhaps be granted upon a petition before the filing of a bill. The objection that a party who has proceeded by a petition should have filed a cross-bill, a supplemental bill, or a supplemental answer, is too late when not taken till after an answer to the petition and a decree thereupon.8 6 "The $ 200. Petitions for Leave to Sue in forma pauperis. right to sue in forma pauperis originated in the statute of Hen. VII. This and the subsequent statute of Hen. VIII. are confined to actions in the courts of common law, and do not extend to defendants. The courts of equity have adopted the principle of these statutes, and proceeding further, have extended the relief to the case of defendants." 1 An infant may sue or defend in this manner 2 in equity, but, unless so authorized by State statute, not at common law. In the Southern District of New York, it has been held that a non-resident may sue in forma pauperis at common law. A party may take an appeal to the Supreme Court, or sue out a writ of habeas corpus there in forma pauperis. A person suing or being sued in a representative capacity could not obtain an order of this character. According to the English practice, the person desiring permission to sue or defend in forma pauperis was obliged to present a petition to the Master of the Rolls, containing a short statement of his case or defense, and of the proceedings, if any, which had been had in the cause, and praying to be admitted to sue in forma pauperis, and that a counsel and solicitor might be assigned to him.8 The petition, when filed by a complainant, had to be accompanied by a certificate signed by counsel "that he conceives the plaintiff has just cause to be relieved touching the matter of the petition for which he has exhibited his bill;" and in all cases by the affidavit of the party himself "that he is not worth in all the world the sum of 7 Mayor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves 129; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1801. 8 Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277; Coburn v. Cedar Valley Coal & Land Co., 138 U. S. 196, 222. § 200. 1 Lord Lyndhurst in Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613, 615. See Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771. 2 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771. 3 Roy v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 276. 4 Heckman v. Mackey, 32 Fed. R. 574. 5 See In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263. 6 In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263. 7 Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 44; Anon., 1 Ves. Jr. 409. But see Thompson v. Thompson, cited in 1 Turner & V. Chan. Pr. 513; Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 46. 51. after payment of his just debts, his wearing apparel and the matters in question in the cause only excepted." 9 When the petition was approved, the Master of the Rolls underwrote an order admitting the petitioner to sue or defend in forma pauperis, and assigned a counsel and solicitor to act on his behalf.10 Such counsel or solicitor could not refuse so to act unless excused by the court for a sufficient reason. They could not take any fee, profit, or reward of the pauper for the despatch of business, while the cause was pending and the party continued in forma pauperis, except paupers' fees, which were twopence a sheet for the labor of copying. Nor could any agreement be made for the payment of any recompense afterwards.18 For an offence in either of these respects, both the lawyer and the client were guilty of contempt of court; and the client was dispaupered, and forever disqualified from suing as a pauper in the same suit.14 When it was made to appear to the court that a pauper had sold or contracted for the benefit of his suit, or any part thereof, while the same was depending, his suit was dismissed absolutely.15 No fees except paupers' fees could be collected from the pauper, nor could costs be decreed against him,16 except for scandal.17 In case of success, however, the court might allow him full costs. "For though he is at no costs, or but small expense, yet the counsel and clerks do not give their labor to the defendant, but to the pauper." 18 The order permitting a party to sue or defend in forma pauperis had to be served upon the opposite party as soon as possible. For the pauper was liable for all costs decreed against him before the service of the order.19 A party could be dispaupered for improper or vexatious conduct in the suit.20 § 201. Petitions of Intervention. A petition of intervention is filed in a pending cause by a person who is not a party to it; and prays permission to intervene and become a party, either 9 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 46; Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Brown Ch. C. 272. 10 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 47. Scatchmer v. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Cases Abr. 125. 17 Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. 232. See also Murphy v. Oldis, 2 Molloy, 475; Richardson v. Richardson, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 58. 18 Scatchmer v. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Cases Abr. 125; Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. 232; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 49, 50, 19 Ballard v. Catling, 2 Keen, 606. 20 Wagner v. Mears, 3 Simons, 127. plaintiff or defendant. The general rule is that the court has no power to allow a stranger to a cause "to be heard therein. either by petition or motion, except in certain cases arising from necessity, as where the pleadings contain scandal against a stranger, or where a stranger purchases the subject of litigation pending the suit, and the like." In a suit brought by a member of a class on behalf of himself and others similarly interested, another member of the class who desires the success of the complainant 2 can always intervene, even after a decree for a sale, provided there has been no distribution of the assets, upon payment of his share of the costs, expenses, and reasonable counsel fees which have been previously paid or incurred. Ordinarily, such a person will be joined as plaintiff. If he is citizen of the same State as one of the defendants, that will not in most, if in any cases, deprive the court of jurisdiction. If there should be any danger that it would, he may be joined as a defendant. If he intends to act in hostility to the original complainant, the court may, in its discretion, add him to the defendants.8 In suits brought by or against a trustee, or otherwise affecting trust property, the beneficiaries of the trust, such as trustholders, will frequently be allowed to intervene for the purpose of protecting their interests; but ordinarily the right to intervene will be denied them in the absence of fraud, neglect, inability, collusion, or bad faith by the trustee.10 In suits brought by or § 201. 1 Mr. Justice Bradley in Anderson v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 628, 629. See also Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. R. Co, 2 Woods, 621, 625; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 145; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524; Coleman v. Martin, 6 Blatchf. 119; Drake v. Goodridge, 6 Blatchf. 151; Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel Co., 18 Blatchf. 118. 5 Central Railroad v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527. 6 Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61. 7 Brown v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 5 Blatchf. 525, 535. 8 Galveston R. R. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 478; Forbes v. Memphis, El Paso & Pacific R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323. 9 Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684; 2 Forbes v. Memphis, El Paso & Pacific Drew v. Harman, 5 Price, 319; Saylors R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323. 3 Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, 539; s. c. 22 How. 380; Myers r. Fenn. 5 Wall. 205; Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248; First Nat. Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 432; Leigh v. Thomas, 2 Ves. Sen. 312; Story's Eq. Pl. § 99. v. Saylors, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 525; Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head (Tenn.), 289; Carter v. New Orleans, 19 Fed. R. 659; F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Mo. I. & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R. 264. 10 Richards v. Chesapeake & O. R. R. Co., 1 Hughes, 28, 36; Skiddy v. Atlantic M. & O. R. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 320, 3504 George v. St. Louis Cable & W. Ry. 352; per Bond, J., Hughes, J., dissenting. Co., 44 Fed. R. 117. against a corporation, stockholders may be allowed to intervene if there is any danger of their being injured by fraud, neglect, or collusion on the part of the officers; 11 and in some such cases stockholders have been allowed to file an answer and defend the suit in the name of the corporation.12 In the absence of fraud, neglect, or collusion by the officers of the corporation, stockholders will not be allowed to intervene before a decree.13 New parties can always intervene by the consent of the original parties.14 Persons interested in disputing the validity of a patent have been allowed to move to set aside a decree recognizing the validity of the patent entered by collusion in a suit to which they were strangers.15 But such persons were not allowed to intervene in a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent when they relied upon a distinct defense not raised therein.16 A person claiming a right to share in a fund in court, or claiming the title to property in the hands of a receiver, is usually allowed to intervene pro interesse suo. A party claiming the equitable title to land held by a railway company of which the receiver had not taken possession, and which was exempted from the receivership by order, and not otherwise mentioned in the proceedings, was denied leave to intervene in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on the property of the railroad.18 The AttorneyGeneral of the United States may intervene for the protection of the Federal government in a suit between two States affecting their boundaries. 19 A petition for leave to intervene should describe the proceedings in the cause in which it is filed, so that the court can see the nature and condition of the suit.20 It may also contain a 11 Bayliss v. Lafayette, M. & B. R. Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 193. 16 Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co., 18 Blatchf. 118; s. c. 2 Fed. R. 330; 12 Bronson v. La Crosse & M. R. R. Co., Cochrane v. Deener, 95 U. S. 355; Thomas 2 Wall. 283. 13 Forbes v. Memphis E. P. & P. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323, 333. For a peculiar case, see Coffin v. Chattanooga Water & Power Co., 44 Fed. 535. 14 Galveston Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 464; French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525. 15 Barker v. Todd, 15 Fed. R. 265. But see Washurn & Moen Manuf. Co. v. Colwell Steel Barb Fence Co., 1 Fed. R. 225; Cochrane v. Deener, 95 U. S. 355. H. El. Co. v. Sperry Co., 46 Fed. R. 75. 17 See Lord Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Swanston, 290; Daniell's Ch. (2d Am. ed.) 1263, 1270. 18 Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 45 Fed. R. 444. 19 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; supra, § 14. 20 Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs, 18 How. 295. 22 statement of the petitioner's view of the case, and pray in addition to intervention the final relief which he desires.21 A paper termed a cross-bill, if otherwise correct in form, may be sustained as a petition of intervention. If any of the original parties desires to contest the petitioner's right to intervene, he must do so specifically at the hearing upon the petition.23 Leave to intervene when granted should be given by order; 24 but by proceeding without objection an omission to enter such an order will be waived.25 After intervention the new parties are treated to all intents and purposes as if they had been original parties to the suit.26 Their citizenship, if the suit is pending in a Federal court at the time of their intervention, does not affect the jurisdiction.27 If the suit is then pending in a State court, in a proper case they may remove it.28 They have the right to appeal from the final decree, and can then object to all interlocutory proceedings taken after their intervention.29 § 202. Form of Petitions and Practice upon Them. A petition should be properly entitled in the cause in which it is presented.1 When not a cause petition, a petition is entitled "In the matter of the application of," &c. The petitioner, if not a party to a cause in which the petition is filed, should state his name, residence, and description.2 A petition should contain no scandal or impertinence; for which, like any other proceeding, it may be referred. A petition need not be signed by counsel unless it seeks a rehearing or an appeal. Petitions are usually signed by the party making them, either personally or by his solicitor.5 "Petitions are either for orders of course, or for special orders. Petitions for orders of course are forthwith granted, without any attendance being ordered; if they are for special matters a day is appointed for hearing them. Most things which may be moved for of course, may also be obtained, as of course, upon petition." 6 21 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 519, Fed. R. 356. But see Iowa Homestead 520. Co. v. Des Moines Nav. & R. R. Co., 8 Fed. R. 97. 22 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 519. 28 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525; Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205. 24 For the form of an order, see Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 249. 25 Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205. 26 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525. 27 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 283-284. 28 Hack v. Chicago & G. S. Ry. Co., 23 29 Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 252; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684. § 202. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1802. 2 Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 492. |