266 F.1d 215 - O'Brien v. Lashar — 266 F. 215

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1974

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 and error <&wkey;82(3) — Refusal to malí© pro confesso · Case Law">decree pro confesso absoluta and opening it are not appealable orders.

¶2Orders for decree pro confesso, which did not make the decree absolute, and for opening the decree to permit defendants to make motions to dismiss or to flic answer, are interlocutory orders, which are not appealable.

¶3Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.

¶4Two suits by James J. O’Brien against Walter B. Uashar and others. From orders refusing to make the decree pro confesso absolute, and opening it to permit defendants to plead, plaintiff appeals. On motion to dismiss.

¶5Appeals dismissed.

¶6James J. O’Brien, in pro. per.

¶7W. H. O’Hara and A. M. Marsh, both of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellees.

¶8Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10This appeal is not taken under section 129 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1121), but on the ground that the court below erred in not making the decree pro confess'© 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 ap-pealable. If erroneous, they can be corrected only on appeal from a final decree in the cause.

¶11Motion granted.