Shields v. Barrow, 58U.S.(17HOW.) 130, 139,15 L. Ed. 158B
The court here point out: ...2.)Persons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made
parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine
the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it. These persons
are commonly termed necessary parties. 3.) Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy,
but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest,
or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with
equity and good conscience.
Whether the material interest be in the dispute of the allegations of the Plaintiffs, or in defense of
the Defendant, it is certain that without the third-party intervenor, the aged-Defendant would not
have been dealt with properly by the Court. The Defendant has NOTHING to offer in her defense.
Whereas, The third-party Intervenor has claimed to have testimony and first-person witness of the
damages as they were occurring. Justice would demand the third-party Intervenor to be present in
some fashion to weigh against the Defendant’s lack of a defense, as well as the Plaintiffs’ lack of…
For the foregoing reasons, the Intervenor prays that this Court reverse the Trial Court’s decision
and remand the matter for a new trial or a dismissal of the old one.