*1 601. et al. v. ATKINS CHAMP 7964.
No. Appeals for Court States
United of Columbia.
Argued March 1942. May 18,
Decided Rehearing June Petition for
On Wаshington, Halpern, of H. Isadore Mr. C., appellant.
D. for Henry Johnson, Jr., Lincoln of Wash- Mr. C., appellеes other for than Van ington, D. and Stewart. Duzer entered brief appearance No filed Duzеr and appellees Van Stewart. *2 602 GRONER, Justice, by him, Chief and agent, person Before his or any other with EDGERTON, express Associate the implied and or owner, VINSON consent the of * * 2 shall be forthwith suspended Justices. appellees Since vyere connected so with Murchison to responsible as bе for his EDGERTON, Associate Justice. negligence, he was agent their within the by Champ injured a taxicab ownеd meaning of this statute. It is immaterial by It bore operated and one Murchison. that fhey operаted neither owned nor the Harlem Taxicab the name and of colors car he drove. Association, unincorporated association an Suspension of their licenses like whom, is сomposed of men of like each ly to appellees induce pay appellant’s to Murchison, operated a The and cab. owned judgment. Her week, economic intеrest in that paid per dues of members $1.00 is inducement evident. We think her in dealer, their one used the bоught cabs from her, terest entitled under Rule service, 24 the per- of telephone same cоlors and and Federal Procedure, Rules of Civil 28 U.S. facili- haps other common service and used C.A. following 723c, section al., to intervene in present appellees, Atkins et ties. The Supremе this The suit. Champ Court has observed members of the Association. were suspension that of licenses under the such, judgment them as and recovered sued original statute, New York which like our theory they them that were against on the gave express own rights no judg joint enterprise with Murchi- engaged in a creditor, 1 ment protection was “not for the unpaid. judgment The remains son. That * * of merely the creditor *.”3 This the the District Court certified Clerk of is as much as to that pro the creditor’s Traffic, awith of judgment to the Director tection purposes is one of the of such a appellees’ suspension the drivers’ view to of statute. registration certificates.
permits and In opinion appеllees’ our complaint should suit, present appellees sought In and the be dismissed. summary declaratory judgment obtained a against the Clerk and the Director of Traf- Reversed. appellеes’ permits effect that and fic to the suspended, should the certificates be on not On Petitiоn for Rehearing. they ground judgment are not such that complaint The in this suit stated that the as in the Financial described debtors are plaintiffs, present the appellees, “were Champ to Resрonsibility Act. was allowed among persons those par- denominated as intervene, appeals from judg- and now this upon ties whom process service of was had ” ment. * * * jn Champ’s suit. Their brief on аrgues appeal only that the Financial We think the court erred. The Act, Responsibility 1940, 40— D.C.Code judgment Champ’s in previous § suit de seq., 401 et is limited opera- to owners and appellees that terminеd were with engaged cars, tors of and that Champ had no joint enterprise stand- Murchison in a and were ing to in intervene this suit. It responsible contains Champ negligence. for his to suggestion any appellees no that of were appellees’ permits that It follows and served, properly not properly or not suspended, must were certificates be the unless court, Champ’s before in pe- the against suit. In promptly a paid. them is rehearing, appellees’ tition for cоunsel now For Automobile Responsibility the Financial raises that contention. Act of provides Cоlumbia operator’s permit “The that: and all of the Appellees brought present the registrаtion any person, certificates of in purpose suit preventing for the of the en the every event of his satisfy failure to Champ’s judgment by suspen forcement of arising from an accident they siоn of their licenses. If alleged had * * * * ** against rendered him suit, in the District' in this that some damages personаl injury, on account of appellees properly of were not before damages property or to resulting suit, Champ’s from the and court were therefore ownership opеration a by motor her judgment, parties vehicle not bound such Try 2 Supp. Co., (1929) V, 6, 1 Cf. Rhone v. Me Cab 62 D.C.Code Tit. § App.D.C. 201, 834; 255b, 1940, 403; 167, 65 F.2d Callas v. Code 49 Stat. § 40 — 89, supplied. Independent c. Italics Assn., § App. Taxi Owners’ 62 212, 33, 3 192, 37, Mealey, 66 F.2d D.C. certiorari 314 Reitz v. denied U.S. 62 669, 89, 54 290 U.S. S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. 86 L.Ed. S.Ct. —.
603 issue, requires, permit appellees to tice to try that so entitled to been would have wholly complaint. Cf. Federal Rules amend their a their case on they pitched But Procedure, 15(a), 28 of Civil Rule U.S. permit- They cannot be theory. different previous following Our But section 723c. C.A. issues in this court. change the to ted *3 be vacated and right will prejudice without we conformity opinion. with this jus- entered deems that if it