JACK R. MAYER AND JESSIE E. MAYER, APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONAL MISSILE AND ELECTRONICS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The debtors are not aggrieved parties and therefore lack standing to appeal the order.
A judgment creditor and a mortgage holder contested an order concerning debtors' home, in which the debtors had no equity. The debtors appealed the or…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pecuniary Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.
As long ago as 1915, in an opinion by Judge Morrow in Hamilton Trust Co. v. Cornucopia Mines Co., 9 Cir., 223 F. 494, this court stated:
“It is a fundamental rule of appellate jurisdiction that every person desiring to appeal from a decree must be interested in the subject-matter of the litigation, and the interest must be immediate and pecuniary and not a remote consequence of the judgment. The interest must be substantial, and a merely nominal party to an action cannot appeal. The interest must also be subsisting, for although a party may have an appealable interest at the commencement of the suit, if that interest has terminated before the entry of the judgment or decree sought to be appealed from, he cannot appeal. Again, the right or title which the appellant seeks to establish must be his own and not that of a third person. * * * ”
(See, also, United States v. Adamant Co., 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F. 2d 1, 5; In re Michigan-Ohio Bldg. Corporation, 7 Cir., 1941, 117 F. 2d 191, 193. DeKorwin v. First National Bank of Chicago, 7 Cir., 1956, 235 F. 2d 156, 158-159.)
The principles laid down by Judge Morrow are applicable here. The contest here is between a judgment creditor of the debtors and the holder of a mortgage upon their home, in which it is conceded that the debtors have no equity. The debtors appeal from an order that favors the judgment creditor. It is agreed that, if the order is reversed, the mortgagee, not the debtors, will be benefited. Yet the debtors are the appellants, not the mortgagee. The debtors, however, are not aggrieved.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Libby v. City Nat'l Bank, 592 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
Blassie v. The Kroger Co., 345 F.2d 58 (8th Cir. 1965)
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wayne Cnty., 760 F.2d 689 (6th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Michigan-Ohio BLDG. Corp. Fellheimer v. Townsend, 117 F.2d 191 (7th Cir. 1941)
- United States v. Adamant Co., 197 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1952)
- de Korwin v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Chicago, 235 F.2d 156 (7th Cir. 1956)