Eminent domain — Damages — Practice — Notice to mortgagee — Discontinuance of claim by owner — Necessity of timely intervention.
In a proceeding upon a rule to show cause why a mortgagee should not be permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff in a land damage case, in which it appeared that it was instituted more than twenty years ago and had ended more than nine years ago by the owner of the mortgaged property discontinuing the case, it was Held that (1) the mortgagee had not been entitled to notice of the proceeding; (2) the city, in failing to object to the discontinuance of the claim did not become a party to the alleged fraud practiced upon the mortgagee by the owner in abandoning the claim; and (3) the mortgagee's intervention was not timely.
PER CURIAM, January 3, 1949:
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge GORDON.