Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GUION v. LIVERPOOL, LONDON, AND GLOBE INSURANCE CO., 1883 — 109 U.S. 173 · caselaw · US
Securities
GUION v. LIVERPOOL, LONDON, AND GLOBE INSURANCE CO.
109 U.S. 17327 L. Ed. 895·Supreme Court of the United States·1883
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GUION v. LIVERPOOL, LONDON, AND GLOBE INSURANCE CO.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF .INDIANA.
Argued October 15tH, 1883.
Decided November 5th, 1883.
Appeal.
A person not a party in a suit cannot take an appeal in it.
On the 2d July, 1879, "William H, Guión, claiming to have an interest in the bonds of the appellee which were the subject of controversy in the suit of The Indiana Southern Railroad Company v. The Liverpool, London, & Globe Insurance Company, just reported, filed his petition in that suit in the court below, asking to be admitted as a party to the suit for his own protection. This petition was denied. Guión was allowed an appeal on giving" bond and security for cost, but the transcript does not show that he ever gave the bond.
The case was argued simultaneously with the case of The Indiana Southern Railroad Company, and by the same' counsel.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice 'Waite,]
Mr. Chief Justice 'Waite,
in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, said:
The petition of Guión was for leave to appeal from a decree in a suit to which hé was not a party. ' We decided in Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, that such an appeal could not be taken. He had applied for leave to become a party, but this leave ivas not given. So .he is not a party to the decree from which he appeals. But if he is, he has never perfected an appeal by giving the Inecessary security.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.