144 F.1d 839 - Cay v. Vereen — 144 F. 839

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1927

3 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Appeal — Api>ealablb Decree — Dismissal as to Ose Depekdant.

¶2A decree dismissing a hill as to one oí two or more defendants, leaving the case undisposed of as to the others, is not a final decree, and not ap-pealable.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 484-493.]

¶4Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.

¶5W. A. Blount and A. C. Blount, Jr., for appellant.

¶6Thos. R. Clarke and Spencer R. Atkinson, for appellee.

¶7Before McCORMICK and SHERBY, Circuit Judges, and PAR-RANGE, District Judge.

¶8PER CURIAM.

¶9This was a suit in equity by the appellant, as complainant, against the Coast Cypress Lumber Company, a corporation, and W. C. Vereen, defendants. A decree was rendered “That the complainant's bill of complaint as against the defendant W. C. Vereen be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.” The appeal was taken *840from this decree. The record shows no disposition of the case as to ■the other defendant. An appeal does not lie until there has been a ■ final disposition of the case as to both defendants. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hohorst v. Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, 13 Sup. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443; Menge v. Warriner, 120 Fed. 816, 57 C. C. A. 432.

¶10Dismissed.