OCR Text |
Show -j.; Mr. Justice McKcnna, aftor making the foregoing statement, doliverod the opinion of tho court. , A question of jurisdiction is presented by tho United States. Fivo of tho defendants named in tho bill i'ailod to an-cwor and a docroo pro conies, o was taken against thorn. Tho othor defendants, appellants horo, after tho affirmance by the circuit Court of Appeals of the intorlocutory injunction, filed a joint and several ansror. On this answer and tho bill tho case was heard and a decreo ontorod against all of the defendants. From that dcorco tho appellants hore appoulod to the Circuit cov^'t' of Appeals without joining therein the other five defendants. The contention is that tho Circuit Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction and that this court has none, because the five defaulting defendants had such interost in tho case and decreo that they should have joined in the apical, or proceedings should have been taken against them in tho nature of summons and severance or its equivalent. Tho rule which requires the partios to a judgment or decree to join in an appealfor writ of error, or , .• be detached from tho right by some proper proceeding, or by their renunciation, is firmly established. but the rule only applies to joint judgments or decrcou. In other words, when tho Interest of a defendant Is top'rite from that of othor defendants ho may appeal without them. 1:0or. the case at bar comG within tho rulor Tho bill docs not distinguish the acts, of the defendanto, but it docs not necescarily imply that there was botwoen them, |