UNITED STATES ex rel. STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BOARMAN, Judge

UNITED STATES ex rel. STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BOARMAN, Judge. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. October 29, 1914.) No. 2636. 1. Courts (§ 365*) — Proceeding by State to Compel Allowance of Appeal. A state, which by the decision of its own Supreme Court has no real or beneficial interest in lands in controversy in a suit in a federal court, held not entitled to maintain a proceeding for a writ of mandamus to compel the allowance of an appeal from the decree therein on behalf of one of its levee districts. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 950, 952, 955, 989-971 ; Dec. Dig. § 305.* Mandamus in aid of appeals, see note to Lewis v. Baltimore & L. R. Co., 10 C. C. A. 450.] 2. Appeal and Error (§ 148*) — Right of Review — Persons Entitled. One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to an appeal therefrom. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 925-932; Dec. Dig. § 148.] Petition, on relation of the State of Louisiana, for mandamus and certiorari to Aleck Boarman, Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Rule to show cause discharged. Ruffin G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Edgar H. Farrar, of New Orleans, La., and Henry Bernstein, of Monroe, La., opposed. Before PARDEE, Circuit Judge, and GRUBB and CALL, District Judges. For other cases see same topic & § numbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1007 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The application for a mandamus and certiorari to the judge of the Western district of Louisiana-to allow an appeal on the part of and in behalf of the state of Louisiana from a decree rendered" in the District Court of said district in the case entitled “Board of Levee Commissioners of the Tensas Basin Levee District v. Tensas Delta Land Company, Limited,” is denied. 1. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana, reported in State v. Tensas Delta Land Co., Ltd., 126 La. 59, 52 South. 216, the Supreme Court of the state on full consideration decided that the state was without real or beneficial interest in the lands in controversy, and this decision is controlling in this court. 2. “One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to an appeal therefrom. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 Flow. 530 [13 L. Ed. 245] ; Indiana R. Co. v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 168 [3 Sup. Ct. 108, 27 L. Ed. 895] ; Ex Parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578 [26 L. Ed. 856].” In the Matter of Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York, Petitioner, 222 U. S. 578, 581, 32 Sup. Ct. 833 (56 L. Ed. 323). Rule discharged.