
    HUTCHINS v. DANTE.
    Appeal and Error; Dismissal of Appeal; Parties; Appeal Bond.
    A general appeal prayed in open court mil not be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners for leave to intervene and to dismiss the appeal were not made parties to the appeal, since such an appeal brings up all adverse parties without citation; and if but one appellee is named as obligee in the appeal bond, an order will be made, if desired, requiring the appellant to file a new bond, to include all the appellees, although there would seem to be no necessity for so doing.
    No. 2486.
    Submitted February 5, 1913.
    Decided February 10, 1913.
    Hearing- on a,petition for leave to intervene.
    
      Denied.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. B. Boss Perry, Mr. E. PL. Thomas, Mr. Charles II. Merillat, Mr. Myer Cohun, and Mr. William G. Johnson in support of the motion.
    
      Mr. John C. Gitlings, and Mr. J. Morrill Chamberlin opposed.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Walter Stilson Hutchins and Lee Hutchins, children and heirs at law of Stilson Hutchins, deceased, file a petition for leave to intervene and to move to dismiss the appeal because they have not been made parties to it.

Dante is the only obligee named in the cost bond given on appeal.

The motion must be denied. The appeal was prayed in open court, and was general, and hence against all adverse interests. All parties were present in fact or in law, and had notice then and there. No citation was required. All of the parties, as well as Dante, were brought up by the appeal. There would seem to be no necessity for a new bond to protect the interests of the other parties, but if they so desired, an order will be made requiring appellant to file a new bond. See Taylor v. Leisnitzer, 220 U. S. 90, 55 L. ed. 382, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 371. Motion denied.  