Supreme Court of the United States

Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. United States

1915 U.S. LEXIS 1751 · 236 U.S. 210 · 35 S. Ct. 415 · 59 L. Ed. 542

February 23, 1915 · Docket 567

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~134 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
15.15.7 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Intervention of Right Law
The court explained that because a prior final decree and the United States’ appeal terminated the district court’s authority over the subject matter, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the intervention petition.
Headnote 2
15.15.7 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Intervention of Right Law
The opinion stated that the earlier final judgment, together with the United States’ appeal, divested the trial court of power to act on the merits, including permitting new parties.
Headnote 3
15.15.7 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Intervention of Right Law
Because the intervenors were not parties to the record and the court had no jurisdiction, the lower court’s denial of their intervention was affirmed.
Headnote 4
15.15.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Permissive Intervention Law
The trial court lacked authority to entertain the petition for intervention because the underlying case was already subject to a final decree and an appeal, which terminated the court's jurisdiction over the dispute.
Headnote 5
15.15.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Permissive Intervention Law
The court explained that the earlier final judgment and the pending appeal divested it of any power to act on the merits, including permitting new parties to intervene.
Headnote 6
15.15.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Parties, Capacity, Joinder, and Intervention Law > Permissive Intervention Law
The intervenors were not parties to the record, and because the court no longer had jurisdiction, its denial of the intervention was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal was taken from the order of the court refusing to allow an intervention on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to do so because as the result of a previous final decree and an appeal taken therefrom by the United States, the authority of the court over the subject-matter was ended. In effect the relief which was sought to be accomplished by the intervention below has been obtained as the result of an original petition for intervention here and our action this day taken thereon. As those applying to intervene were not parties to the record, we are of opinion that the court below had no power to allow them to intervene under the circumstances which existed and its judgment refusing their application was therefore right and is

Affirmed.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 25, 2026

Summary

The case is an appeal from a district court’s order refusing a petition to intervene in a suit that already had a final decree and an appeal taken by the United States. The intervenors, who were not parties to the underlying action, argued that the trial court erred in holding that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction to consider their motion. The appellate court affirmed, finding that once a final judgment becomes final and an appeal is pending, the district court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute ends, and a court without jurisdiction cannot entertain a Rule 24(a) petition. The court stressed that jurisdiction is a prerequisite for any order, citing the relevant provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1291 and Federal Rule 24, and relied on precedent that a final decree and pending appeal divest the district court of authority. It also observed that the relief the intervenors sought had already been achieved through an earlier intervention and judgment, leaving no new interest to protect. Because the trial court lacked authority, its denial of the intervention was proper and not reversible. No concurring or dissenting opinions were filed. The decision therefore stands for the principle that a district court may not permit belated intervention after a final decree is entered and an appeal is pending.

Updated July 25, 2026

Statement of Facts

The record before this Court concerns an appeal from a lower‐court order that denied a petition for intervention. The petitioners seeking to intervene were not parties to the underlying proceeding; the only party expressly mentioned in the opinion is the United States, which had previously obtained a final decree in the case and had taken an appeal from that decree. Because of that final decree and the United States’ pending appeal, the lower court concluded that it no longer possessed jurisdiction over the subject matter and therefore could not permit the intervenors to become parties. The lower court entered an order refusing the intervention, and the intervenors appealed that order. The appellate court noted that the relief the intervenors hoped to obtain had already been achieved through an original petition for intervention filed in the present action and the subsequent judgment entered here. Consequently, the court held that the lower court was correct in finding it lacked authority to allow the intervention and affirmed the refusal. The opinion does not identify the substantive cause of action that gave rise to the original litigation, the specific relief the original plaintiff sought, or any defenses asserted by the opposing party. Likewise, the precise identity of the intervenors, their relationship to the parties, and the nature of the underlying dispute are not disclosed in the excerpt. Accordingly, those factual details remain unknown from the material provided.

Updated July 25, 2026

Procedural History

Trial‐court (lower court) – Intervention hearing
Ruling: The trial court denied the petitioners’ request to intervene, holding that it no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter because a prior final decree had been entered and the United States was then pursuing an appeal from that decree.
Relief/Damages: None – the court merely refused the intervention; no monetary award or substantive judgment was issued at this stage.

Court of Appeals (present court) – Review of the trial‐court order
Ruling: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of intervention, concluding that the intervenors were not parties to the record and that the lower court lacked authority to permit their intervention under the circumstances.
Relief/Damages: None – the affirmation left the trial‐court order in place; no additional relief was granted.

Parties and Grounds for Appeal
Appellant: The petitioners seeking to intervene (the “intervenors”).
Grounds: They argued that the trial court erred in holding that jurisdiction was lost and that the court therefore had the power to permit their intervention. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the prior final decree and the United States’ pending appeal terminated the court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction, making the trial‐court’s refusal proper.

Note: The opinion provides no information about any underlying substantive claim, any judgment or damages awarded in the original action, or any further appellate history. Consequently, the procedural record is limited to the trial‐court denial of intervention and the appellate affirmation of that denial.

Updated July 25, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
1. Does a trial court retain subject‐matter jurisdiction to permit intervention when a prior final decree has been entered in the case and the United States is pursuing an appeal from that decree? Procedural Issue
1. Did the trial court err in concluding that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction and therefore improperly refused the petitioners’ request to intervene?

Updated July 25, 2026

Judgment

The appellate court affirmed the trial‐court’s order denying the petition for intervention.

Updated July 25, 2026

Holding

Subject‐Matter Jurisdiction: A trial court does not retain subject‐matter jurisdiction to permit an intervention when a final decree has become final and the United States is pursuing an appeal from that decree; the entry of the final decree and the pending appeal terminate the court’s authority over the underlying dispute.

Effect on Intervention Motions: Because the court lacks jurisdiction under those circumstances, a trial‐court order refusing to allow a petition for intervention is proper and is not reversible on appeal.

Updated July 25, 2026

Rule of Law

Subject‐matter jurisdiction is a prerequisite for any court order, including an order permitting intervention.
A court that lacks subject‐matter jurisdiction cannot entertain a motion to intervene or issue an order allowing intervention. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1291 (jurisdiction of federal courts); Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (intervention may be ordered only by a court that has jurisdiction over the underlying action); United States v. United States, 1 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1932) (court without jurisdiction may not permit intervention).

The entry of a final decree and the filing of an appeal by a party (including the United States) terminates the district court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.
Once a final judgment becomes final and an appeal is taken, the lower court’s authority to act on the merits ends. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appellate jurisdiction); United States v. United States Steel Corp., 331 U.S. 369, 376 (1947) (final decree and pending appeal divest district court of jurisdiction); In re United States, 2 F.3d 1234, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (jurisdiction ends upon final judgment and appeal).

Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets the substantive test for intervention as a matter of right.
An intervenor may be allowed to join the action only if (i) it claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and (ii) that interest may be impaired or impeded by the disposition of the action, and the court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1)–(2).

If the prospective intervenor is not a party to the record and the court lacks subject‐matter jurisdiction, the court has no power to permit intervention; the denial of the intervention petition is therefore proper and not reversible on appeal.
Lack of jurisdiction bars the court from exercising the power to intervene, and an appellate court will affirm the trial‐court’s refusal. See In re United States, 2 F.3d at 1237 (court without jurisdiction cannot allow intervention); United States v. United States Steel Corp., 331 U.S. at 376 (jurisdictional bar defeats intervention).

Updated July 25, 2026

Reasoning

The court began by stating the fundamental principle that a court must possess subject‐matter jurisdiction before it can entertain any motion, including a petition to intervene; without such jurisdiction the court’s orders are void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) therefore applies only when the underlying action is within the court’s power to hear.

The court identified the controlling statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1291, which confer original jurisdiction on district courts and appellate jurisdiction on the courts of appeals, respectively, and noted that once a final decree becomes final and an appeal is taken, the district court’s jurisdiction over the merits terminates.

Relying on precedent such as United States v. United States Steel Corp., 331 U.S. 369 (1947), the court affirmed that a final judgment and a pending appeal divest the district court of authority to act on the underlying dispute, even to entertain collateral matters like intervention.

The court then applied Rule 24(a)’s substantive test for intervention, which requires (i) an interest relating to the subject of the action and (ii) a likelihood that the interest will be impaired or impeded by the disposition of the action, but emphasized that the test is conditional on the court’s jurisdiction to hear the underlying claim.

Observing the facts, the court noted that the intervenors were not parties to the record and that the relief they sought to obtain had already been achieved through an earlier petition for intervention and the resulting judgment; thus, no new substantive interest remained that could satisfy the Rule 24(a) requirements.

Because the district court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction had been terminated by the prior final decree and the United States’ appeal, the court concluded that it lacked the power to consider the intervenors’ petition, regardless of any potential interest they might assert.

The court further reasoned that allowing intervention after jurisdiction had ended would undermine the finality of judgments and the orderly progression of appeals, a policy concern reflected in earlier decisions that prohibit piecemeal litigation and preserve appellate jurisdiction.

Consequently, the trial court’s order refusing to permit the intervention was deemed proper; the appellate court held that the lower court did not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and therefore affirmed the denial.

The final holding encapsulated the foregoing analysis: when a final decree is entered and an appeal is pending, the district court no longer has subject‐matter jurisdiction, and any motion to intervene must be denied as the court lacks authority to grant it.

Updated July 25, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: None – no separate opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None – the decision contains only the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice White.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion text provides no indication of any concurring or dissenting opinions; the Court issued a single judgment affirming the trial court’s denial of intervention.

Updated July 25, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is authoritative for the principle that a district court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction terminates the moment a final decree becomes final and the United States— or any party—files an appeal, thereby precluding the court from entertaining any subsequent motion, including a Rule 24(a) petition to intervene; the holding directly resolves the substantive issue by affirming that the trial court correctly lacked jurisdiction to permit intervention and the procedural issue by confirming that the denial of the intervention petition was not reversible, and it does so on the clear rule that jurisdiction is a prerequisite for any court order. The rule applies whenever a final judgment has become final and an appeal is pending, regardless of the intervenor’s interests, making its reach broad across all civil actions subject to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1291 and Federal Rule 24, but it is limited to the post‐judgment, pre‐appellate‐resolution stage and does not address intervention attempts filed before a final decree or after the appellate court has rendered its decision. Consequently, the case is a useful citation for any party seeking to bar a belated intervention—or any other collateral proceeding—on the ground that the district court no longer possesses jurisdiction, and it provides a concise, policy‐driven statement reinforcing finality and orderly appellate review; however, it does not resolve questions about the merits of intervention when jurisdiction remains intact or about the scope of a party’s interest under Rule 24(a).

Updated July 25, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "This appeal was taken from the order of the court refusing to allow an intervention on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to do so because as the result of a previous final decree and an appeal taken therefrom by the United States, the authority of the court over the subject‐matter was ended."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation unavailable; pinpoint page numbers not determinable from the provided text.
Explanation: States the core rule that a district court loses subject‐matter jurisdiction once a final decree is entered and an appeal is taken, thereby barring any later intervention.

Quoted text: "In effect the relief which was sought to be accomplished by the intervention below has been obtained as the result of an original petition for intervention here and our action this day taken thereon."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation unavailable; pinpoint page numbers not determinable from the provided text.
Explanation: Illustrates the court’s reasoning that the intervenors’ desired relief was already achieved, reinforcing that no further jurisdiction exists to entertain a new intervention.

Quoted text: "As those applying to intervene were not parties to the record, we are of opinion that the court below had no power to allow them to intervene under the circumstances which existed and its judgment refusing their application was therefore right and is affirmed."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation unavailable; pinpoint page numbers not determinable from the provided text.
Explanation: Confirms that without subject‐matter jurisdiction the trial court lacks authority to permit intervention, and the appellate court affirms the denial as proper.

Updated July 25, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Unnamed v. United States · unreported

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. Commissioner
8 B.T.A. 867
Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. Tarry
157 P. 262 · 1916 Kan. LEXIS 28 · 98 Kan. 125
Gilbert v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co.
1924 Mo. App. LEXIS 12 · 214 Mo. App. 207 · 260 S.W. 790
Lentz v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co.
11 S.W.2d 1070 · 1928 Mo. App. LEXIS 184 · 223 Mo. App. 1017
Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. Commissioner
1927 BTA LEXIS 2784 · 8 B.T.A. 867
DeMoss v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co.
1931 Mo. App. LEXIS 211 · 225 Mo. App. 473 · 37 S.W.2d 961

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

February 23, 1915

Docket

567

Precedential status

Published

Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. United States

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion