Show I i MAY NOT INTERVENE Thomas P Lewis Slept Too Long on His Rights The motion of Thomas P Lewis to be allowed to intervene in the matter of the Central Trust companys foreclosure fore-closure suit against the Utah Central Hallway company which was argued on Saturday was overruled by Judge Hiles yesterday Lewis has a claim against the defendant company for labor a la-bor which he neglected to press before the decrees of foreclosure were entered It appeared he obtained judgment against the company but failed to docket it until after decrees of foreclosure r fore-closure were entered and the litigation J ended ft Judge Hiles opinion is in part as follow fol-low As a general rule the right of a party to intervene is allowable only when he has a specific lien on the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation A simple contract cannot as a rule intervene In this case no lien was acquired by Mr Lewis until afte the litigation in this case had ended He would not have been entitled to intervene before the trial and I do not think that his right under this aftfracquired lien can be adjudicated adjudi-cated in a proceeding in intervention in this case I am also of the oninion that his motion comes too late The statute provides that any person may before the trial intervene in an action or proceeding pro-ceeding I am asked to apply this statute as if it should read may before or aftc judgment intervene in an action or proceeding To so apply it would be to introduce a new term into the statute and would be is seems tome to-me judicial legislation It is doubtful too whether if Lewis had obtained judgment and had intervened inter-vened before the trial he could have been brought within the rule of Fos dick vs Schall and Burnham vs Bowen in respect of preferential claim over the railroad mortgage I am not disposed to extend the rule of those cases beyond the conditions under which they were decided Indeed I should never have thought the doctrine doc-trine in those cases to be the law had they not the high authority and sanction I sanc-tion of the United States supreme l court and that I do not wish to be wise beyond that which is written Therefore I am of the opinion that the motion to interven should be denied de-nied |