Rosecrans

The Court erred in not striking out the petition of intervention.

The practice of intervention pertains only to causes in equity, and not to actions at law.

It is intended to supply the place of the ancient chancery practice, by means of which all persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit could be brought before the Court, and their interests adjudicated. *

Indeed, it is impossible to conceive a case where the action only involves the strict legal title to a chose in action, a chattel, or a tract of land, in which an intervention would be proper. The reason is obvious. If one who ought to have been made a *511 party in such action has not been, the plaintiff suffers the consequences in failing to obtain the judgment he expected. Or he may amend and make such person a party, and in any event the-judgment of the Court cannot bind the person seeking to intervene.

It is true that our position has never been directly sustained by the decisions of this Court; but all of the cases in which interventions have been allowed have been equitable or gttcm-equi-' table proceedings. (Stick v. Goldner, 38 Cal. 609 ; Horn v. Volcano Water Company, 13 Cal. 70 ; Montgomery v. Tutt, 11…