92 F. 541 | 6th Cir. | 1899
The removal of this cause to the court below was sustained on the ground that there was a separable controversy between tlie Kailroad Equipment Company, a corporation and citizen of New Jersey, and the ¡Southern Eailway Company, a corporation and citizen of Virginia; that the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Eailway Company was a nominal party only, and that the cause of action, if any, stated against McGhee and Sanford, citizens of Tennessee, was in the alternative, pressed only in case the main contention against; the Southern Eailway Company could not be maintained, and therefore a distinct controversy from the main one, which could be settled in a separate suit. The appellant brings this appeal, and assigns as one error the failure of the court below to remand, insisting that the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Eailway Com
The difficulty which the appellant meets at the threshold of the cause is that it has not made the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company a party to the appeal by serving a citation upon it. The appeal was taken at the term of the circuit court succeeding the one at which the decree appealed from was entered. Therefore it was necessary, ip order to bring the parties in as appellees, to issue and serve citations upon them.
In Jacobs v. George, 150 U. S. 415, 14 Sup. Ct. 159, the chief justice, speaking for the supreme court, said of the practice in the matter of appeals:
“It must be regarded as settled that (1) where an appeal is allowed in open court, and perfected during the term at which the decree or judgment appealed from was rendered, no citation is necessary; (2) where the appeal is allowed at the term of the decree or judgment, but not perfected until after the term, a citation is necessary to bring in the parties; but if the appeal be docketed here at our next ensuing term, or the record reaches the clerk’s hands seasonably for that term, and legal excuse exists for lack of docketing, a citation may be issued by leave of this court, although the time for taking the appeal has elapsed; (3) where the appeal is allowed at a term subsequent to that of the decree or judgment, a citation is necessary, but may be issued properly returnable, even after the expiration of the time for taking the ■ appeal, if the allowance of the appeal were before; (4) but a citation is one of the necessary elements of an appeal taken after the term, and if it is not issued and served before the end of the ensuing term of this court, and not waived, the appeal becomes inoperative.”
The nest ensuing term Of this court, after the allowance of the appeal in this case, was the present term, that of October, 1898, which will not end until October, 1899. There is still time in which to issue a citation and bring in the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company before the end of this term. Altenberg v. Grant, 54 U. S. App. 312, 28 C. C. A. 244, and 83 Fed. 980. Until such a citation is issued, however, and the missing party brought into this court, it is not proper for this court to take any action in the cause. Mendenhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, 10 Sup. Ct. 616. It is true that the appellees who are before the court contend that the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company is merely a nominal party, and, if so, that the failure to bring it in as a party to the appeal is immaterial. But the burden of maintaining jurisdiction of this appeal is upon the appellant,” and, as the very basis of appeal on the merits is that this company is a necessary party to the cause, we cannot proceed to hear the appeal until the absent company is brought before us.
The order will be that the cause stand over for the purpose of giving the appellant an opportunity to apply for a citation against the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, and that, if < said citation is not applied for and issued before the end of the present term, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
