
    (8 App. Div. 616)
    CAREY v. KIEFERDORF et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    July 31, 1896.)
    Parties—Right to Intervene—Interest in Controversy.
    One who has no interest in or lien on mortgaged premises is not entitled . to he made a defendant in an action to foreclose the mortgage.
    ■ Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Arthur A. Carey against Cecilia V. Kieferdorf and others to foreclose a mortgage. From an order granting the application of T. B. Egan to be made a party defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before BARRETT, RUMSEY, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    H. V. N. Philip, for appellant.
    James W. McElhinney, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be reversed, for the reason that the applicant was not a judgment creditor of the ow-ner of the premises at.the time of the filing of the notice of lis pendens. He was .consequently neither a necessary nor a proper party, and he had no right to intrude into the action merely to secure notice of the sale of the premises. Having avowedly no defense to the action, as he had no lien upon or interest in the premises at the time of its commencement, his application should "have been denied, with costs.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.  