Salmon v. Mills

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Citation: Salmon v. Mills, 66 F. 32 (8th Cir. 1895)
• Decision Date: 25 January 1895
• Docket Number: 545.
• Parties: SALMON v. MILLS et al. (CONDON, Interpleader).

66 F. 32

SALMON v. MILLS et al. (CONDON, Interpleader).

No. 545.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 25, 1895

Nelson Case, for the motion.

George E. Nelson, opposed.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error to review the order dissolving the attachment in the case, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction, because the order appealed from was not a final decision. The plaintiff Salmon, brought an action May 2, 1889, against the defendants Abraham Mills and Jackson Mills, and on May 24, 1890 recovered a final judgment against the defendants for the amount claimed. Prior to the entry of this judgement the plaintiff had caused an attachment to be levied on certain property, which he claimed to be the property of the defendants, and C. M. Condon had filed an interplea, in which he claimed to be the owner of the property. When the final judgment against the defendants was rendered an order was made holding the attachment proceedings open for any appropriate action, and reserving the issue on the interplea for trial. An order was subsequently made dissolving the attachment, and then a judgment was rendered in favor of the interpleader. After the final judgment was rendered against the defendants, the only issue undetermined between plaintiff and defendants was whether or not the plaintiff had rightfully sued out his attachment, and had thereby obtained a lien on the attached property to secure the payment of the judgment. The order dissolving the attachment finally determined this question, and left no issue for adjudication between these parties. The act creating the circuit courts of appeals provides:

'That the circuit courts of appeals established by this act shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or by writ of error final decision in the district court and the existing circuit courts in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act unless otherwise provided by law.' 26 Stat.c. 517, Sec. 6; Supp.Rev.St.p. 903, Sec. 6.

In Standley v. Roberts, 59 F. 836, 839, 8 C.C.A. 305, this court held that:

'An order, judgement, or decree which leaves the rights of the parties to the suit affected by it undetermined,-- one which does not substantially and completely determine the rights of the parties affected by it in that suit,--is not reviewable here until a final decision is rendered, nor is an order retaining or dismissing parties defendant, who are charged to be jointly liable to the complainant in the suit, appealable. U.S. v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 32; Hohorst v. Packet Co., 148 U.S. 263, 13 Sup.Ct. 590. But a final decision which completely determines the rights, in the suit in which it is rendered, of some of the parties who are not claimed to be jointly liable with those against whom the suit is retained, and a final decision which completely determines a collateral matter distinct from the general subject of litigation, and finally settles that controversy, is subject to review in this court by appeal or writ of error.'

Withenbury v. U.S., 5 Wall. 819; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 4 Sup.Ct. 638; Hill v. Railroad Co., 140 U.S. 52, 11 Sup.Ct. 690; Central Trust Co. v....