TERENCE FARRELLY, EDWARD O. MORTON, ET AL., HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF FREDERIC NOTRIBE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM W. WOODFOLK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal brought by the heirs of Frederic Notribe against William W. Woodfolk because the appeal was prematurely taken from an interlocutory decree rather than a final decree. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case, as the lower court's order referring the matter to a special master in chancery to take accounts was merely an intermediate step requiring further proceedings before a final judgment could be rendered.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice WAYHE delivered the opinion of the court.
This case having been submitted to the court upon printed arguments, we find from an examination of the record that the appeal has been prematurely taken from an interlocutory and not a final decree.
After reciting such facts in the case as the court deemed to be necessary for understanding the subject-matter of controversy, and the court’s directions in respect to the rights of the complainant, the court then orders that the cause shall be referred to the clerk of the court as a special master in chancery, to take and state an account of the sum for which the lands are bound under the mortgage exhibited in the pleadings in the cause; and also to take and state an account, showing what money and property Morton and his wife, and Mary T. Hotribe, widow of Frederic ÍTotribe, have severally received, and aré entitled to receive, which were of the estate of Frederic Eotribe at the time of his death; and a further account, showing what portion of said estate, if any, remains to be administered, setting forth all particulars thereof as far as practicable, and if necessary to the due execution of this order. And the master, is directed to call for and examine on oath any of the parties to this suit, and also to take testimony of witnesses touching any of the matters aforesaid, and to make report to this court. This is so obviously an interlocutory decree, that we do not think it necessary to examine it in detail, to show that a further and final decree is necessary, to give to the complainant any of the advantages to which the court in its previous directions has declared him to he entitled.
Eor the reasons given in the opinion in the case of Roswell Beebe et al., appellants, v. William Russell, we therefore ' direct this cause to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGOURKEY v. Toledo & Ohio Cent. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1892)…tire and full benefit of the previous decision of the court; ” and that the decree is final' when ministerial duties only are' to be performed tó ascertain the. sum due. Practically the same' ruling was made in the next case of Farrelly v. Woodfolk, 19 How. 288. In the. case of the Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, the bill was. iri'the nature of an action of trespass for removing minerals from the plaintiff’s land,'and prayed-for an injunction restraining the defendant from the commission o…
-
Iselin v. La Coste, 147 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1945)…ommitted by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction or in the course of the proceedings even though errors and irregularities may appear on the face of the record. 31 Amer.Jur. 181-183, paragraph 582. Byers v. Surget, 19 How. 303, 60 U.S. 303, 15 L.Ed. 670; Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 87 U.S. 226, 22 L.Ed. 254; Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71, 41 U.S. 71, 10 L.Ed. 891; Mitchell v. St. Maxent’s Lessee, 4 Wall. 237, 71 U.S. 237, 18 L.Ed. 326. The answer to the question of whether or not the lands ar…