O'Brien v. Lashar
| Decision Date | 07 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 235. |
| Citation | 266 F. 215 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | O'BRIEN v. LASHAR et al. (two cases). |
James J. O'Brien, in pro. per.
W. H. O'Hara and A. M. Marsh, both of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellees.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is not taken under section 129 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. Sec. 1121), but on the ground that the court below erred in not making the decree pro confesso absolute, and also in opening it to permit the defendants to make motions to dismiss or to file answers. These orders are interlocutory, and as such not appealable. If erroneous, they can be corrected only on appeal from a final decree in the cause.
Motion granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benitez v. Bank of Nova Scotia
...from cases where an order is entered vacating a decree pro confesso and permitting the defendant to file an answer. O'Brien v. Lashar, 1920, 2 Cir., 266 F. 215; Board of Supervisors v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 1935, 2 Cir., 80 F.2d 248; Beighle v. Le Roy, 1938, 3 Cir., 94 F.2d 30. It is also ......
-
Allen v. Cole Realty, Inc.
...had expired, an order vacating the judgment and setting the cause for trial was interlocutory and, hence, not appealable. O'Brien v. Lashar, 266 F. 215 (CCA 2 1920); Mitchell v. Mason, 4 F.2d 705 (CCA 5 1925); Board of Sup'rs of Rockland County v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 80 F.2d 248 (CCA 2 1......
-
Lee v. Zentz.
...order is interlocutory and not final. Kummer v. United States, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 191; Beighle v. Le Roy, 3 Cir., 94 F.2d 30; O'Brien v. Lashar, 2 Cir., 266 F. 215; Silverberg v. Dearholt, 180 Md. 38, 22 A.2d 588; Massanutten Bank of Strasburg v. Glaize, 177 Va. 519, 14 S.E.2d 285. Cf. Cobble......
- O'Brien v. Lashar, 226.