CORY BROS. & CO., LIMITED,
v.
UNITED STATES
It is impossible to consider the order appealed from a final order. For aught that appears, the libelant may have amended its libel, and may, should the amended libel be dismissed, hereafter appeal from that order. A case may not he brought up in fragments (Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370, 40 S. Ct. 347, 64 L. Ed. 616), and this possibility of a later appeal from a dismissal of an amended libel emphasizes the lack of finality of the order now before us. It does not differ from an order sustaining a demurrer with leave to amend; another order of absolute dismissal after expiration of the time allowed for amendment is required to make a final disposition of the cause. Such orders are not appealable. Clark v. Kansas City, 172 U. S. 334, 19 S. Ct. 207, 43 L. Ed. 467; City and County of San Francisco v. McLaughlin, 9 F.(2d) 390 (C. C. A. 9); Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp. (C. C. A.) 37 F. (2d) 14. As shown by these authorities and many others which might be cited, it is the duty of an appellate court to question its own jurisdiction, though the parties do not.
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Marvell Womack v. Burton F. Goldberg and Joyce S. Goldberg, 117 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
-
Audi Vision Inc. v. RCA MFG. Co., Inc., 136 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1943)
-
Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., Inc., 356 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1958)
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1920)
- W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 37 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1930)
- City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. McLAUGHLIN, 9 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1925)
- Clark v. Kan. City, 172 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1899)