Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Ex Parte Cockcroft

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1881
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84181

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
104 U.S. 578
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ex Parte Cockcroft

Excerpt

.....court ex parte cockcroft, 104 u.s. 578 (1881) ex parte cockcroft 104 u.s. 578 petition for a writ of mandamus syllabus a person cannot appeal from a decree rendered in a suit whereto he was not a party. the facts are stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court of the united states for the district of south carolina to allow an appeal by the petitioner from an order of the court entered on the 7th of october, 1881, confirming a sale of a railroad made pursuant to a decree filed on the 25th of september, 1880, in the suit of calvin, claflin, and others v. the south carolina railroad company and others. the petitioner was not a party to the suit, neither does it appear that he ever asked to be made a party. he is not the holder of any of the bonds that by the decree under which the sale was made are entitled to a distributive share of the proceeds. unless the property should bring at another sale enough to satisfy the mortgages and leave the balance for distribution among the general creditors of the company, he can get no advantage from setting aside the sale which has already been made. in his showing to the circuit court, he certainly did not make it appear that he had any real interest in the controversy. he was evidently heard as a matter of favor, and not because he had any right to intervene. before confirming the sale the court seemed desirous of ascertaining whether, under all the circumstances, in the exercise of its judicial discretion such an order ought to be made. for this purpose, it was willing to consider the affidavits produced by the petitioner. this seems to have been done out of abundant caution, not because it was necessary in law. inasmuch, therefore, as the petitioner was not made a party page 104 u. s. 579 to the suit, either by an express order of the.....

Full Judgment

Ex Parte Cockcroft - 104 U.S. 578 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Cockcroft, 104 U.S. 578 (1881)

Ex Parte Cockcroft

104 U.S. 578

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

SYLLABUS

A person cannot appeal from a decree rendered in a suit whereto he was not a party.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina to allow an appeal by the petitioner from an order of the court entered on the 7th of October, 1881, confirming a sale of a railroad made pursuant to a decree filed on the 25th of September, 1880, in the suit of Calvin, Claflin, and Others v. The South Carolina Railroad Company and Others. The petitioner was not a party to the suit, neither does it appear that he ever asked to be made a party. He is not the holder of any of the bonds that by the decree under which the sale was made are entitled to a distributive share of the proceeds. Unless the property should bring at another sale enough to satisfy the mortgages and leave the balance for distribution among the general creditors of the company, he can get no advantage from setting aside the sale which has already been made. In his showing to the circuit court, he certainly did not make it appear that he had any real interest in the controversy. He was evidently heard as a matter of favor, and not because he had any right to intervene. Before confirming the sale the court seemed desirous of ascertaining whether, under all the circumstances, in the exercise of its judicial discretion such an order ought to be made. For this purpose, it was willing to consider the affidavits produced by the petitioner. This seems to have been done out of abundant caution, not because it was necessary in law.

Inasmuch, therefore, as the petitioner was not made a party

Page 104 U. S. 579

to the suit, either by an express order of the court to that effect, or by being treated as such, his application for an appeal was properly denied. This case cannot be distinguished in principle from Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14 .

Motion denied.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties Ex Parte Cockcroft vs Same Subject Education
Education

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales