Bouree v. Trust Francais des Actions de la Franco-Wyoming Oil Co.

The Chancellor.

The complainants’ opposition to the petition for leave to intervene as a party defendant in this cause is based on two grounds.

First. The contention under this head is that the proper practice requires the petitioner to present a sworn answer with his petition for leave to intervene. No authority is cited in support of this contention. In this case time for answering under the rule has not yet arrived, and it would appear to be unreasonable to require one who desired to be made a party defendant to present his answer at a time earlier than under the rules lie would be required…