SPECIAL INVESTMENTS, INC., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT,

v.

INDIAN LAKE ESTATES, INC., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CAROLINE T. ZAPPA, ALSO KNOWN AS CAROLINE T. MAISANO, REGINALD G. HAINSWORTH ET UX., WENDELL A. SHELTON ET UX., AND GUSTAVE WEINSTEIN ET UX., ET AL., APPELLEES

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Special Investments, Inc., has filed this interlocutory appeal, and is the appellee in another interlocutory appeal in which Indian Lake Estates, Inc., is appellant. Fla.App., 154 So.2d 892.

In its notice of interlocutory appeal Special Investments states that it is appealing from an order, judgment or decree of the Circuit Court for Polk County, Florida, hearing date of November 10, 1961, and that:

“The particular part of said Order herein sought to be reviewed is the part thereof in which the Court denied the motion of this appellant to dismiss the Petition of the Intervenors, Reginald G. Hainsworth and Ruth P. Hainsworth, his wife, Wendell A. Shelton and E. Grace Shelton, his wife, and Gustave Weinstein and Beatrice Weinstein, his wife, and the part thereof in which the motion of this appellant for a release of the funds now held under stipulation of counsel and order of such Court was denied, and all parties to said cause are called upon to take notice of this appeal.”

In the chancellor’s decree denying the petition for rehearing, which is a clarification of the chancellor’s former final decree, it is stated in part as follows:

“With regard to the motion to dismiss the petitions for intervening by Hains-worth, et al, I find that the intervenors each represent a class of the many thousands of lot purchasers in this real estate development, that they have a community of interests insofar as an obligation of Indian Lake Estates, Inc., and, quite possibly, the members of the various Lake Groups and Special Investments, Inc,, to such lot purchasers under the covenant of the contracts, deeds and assignment of such contracts. That to deny the use of a class suit for such determination would necessarily result in multitudinous litigation at prohibitive expense and with the impossibility of bringing the hundreds of members small opportunity of complete justice. Under these circumstances, I feel that this Court of equity must entertain such intervention.”

The appellees pray for certain categories of relief, but no testimony has been taken thereon. After the taking of testimony, the chancellor may determine what relief, if any, can be given.

Affirmed.

SHANNON, C. J., and SMITH and WHITE, JJ., concur.