Summary
In Kauffman v. Kebert, 16 F. R. D. 225, the Federal court considered this provision under the following factual situation: the plaintiff had brought an action for damages resulting from an automobile collision against the defendant, the operator of another car who filed a counterclaim for his damages; the defendant's wife and son who were also injured in the collision sought to intervene over the objection of plaintiff.
Summary of this case from Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. MayoOpinion
No. 11432.
Argued January 18, 1955.
Decided January 31, 1955.
Robert A. Jarvis, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Kenneth W. Rice, Meadville, Pa., Carney Carney, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Frank B. Quinn, Erie, Pa. (A. Grant Walker, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The district court, 16 F.R.D. 225, dismissed the petition of appellants to intervene in this cause under the permissive intervention clause of Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. We are satisfied that such action by the court was proper. Since there existed other adequate means of petitioners asserting their rights we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Cameron v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1 Cir., 157 F.2d 993, 997.
The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.