Case ID: h-j_6/html/0114-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Buchanan, X.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Snowden et al. vs. Dorsey et al.
    
    ' Appeal from an interlocutory decree of the court of chancery. The appellees filed their bill for thé specific .performance of a contract to convey land. The Chancellory (Killy j) in giving his decree, stated that there was sufficient proof of the contract for a conveyance, and that the' bill prayed for an account as a consequence of the right to & conveyance, and a decree therefor; but that he thought proper and necessary to pass an interlocutory decree for an account; in order to ascertain the sum due on either side preparatory to a final decree.. He therefore decreed, that the parties account with each other concerning the matter mentioned in the proceedings, and that the auditor should state an account from, the evidence already offered, or that might be exhibited to him. From this decree the defendants appealed.
    
      \ An appeal will Slot lie from an in* tevlocutory decree <jf the court of -chancevy, ( by which no question Af right between the pardeáis decided,
    The cause coming on-to be argued before Buchanan, Earle,, and Martin, J.
    • T. É. Dorsey, (Attorney General,) and Taney, for the' Appellees;
    moved the court tó dismiss the appeal. They referred to the acts of 1721; ch. 14, s. 4; 1785, ch. 72, s. 27; and 1818, ch. 193, s. 1. Jacob’s L. D. tit. Decree. 2 Harr. Chan. 331. They admitted that there might be an appeal from an interlocutory decree, where there was seme principle decided, as in the cases of Rawlings vs. Kerr in 1789, Steuart vs. Rawlings in 1791, Mackall vs. Wilkinson in 1792, Gover, et al. vs. Hall in 1810, Carnan, et al. vs. Turner, (ante 65,) Blake’s Chan. Pr. 174, 175. They also cited 2 Com. Dig. tit. Chancery, (V) 310. 2 Harr. Chan. 321. Staunton vs. Oldham, 2 Atk. 383. Anon. 1 Ves. jr. 93. Graves vs. Graves, 2 Hen. & Munf. 22.
    
      Magiuder, against the motion,
    referred to the act of 1819, ch. 144, s. 4. Moore vs. White, December 1819. Berry vs. Johnson, December 1814. Pottinger vs. Steuart, December 1813. Hollingsworth vs. M‘Donald, et al. December 1807. Warfield vs. Warfield, 3 Harr. & Johns. 459. Ruthford vs. Fisher, 4 Dall. Rep. 22. Green vs. Winter, 1 Johns. Chan. Rep. 77; and. Wish vs. Bickington, 1 Bro. Ca. Parl. 375.
   Buchanan, X.

delivered the opinion of the court. It is. the opinion of the court that an appeal will not lie from a mere interlocutory order, by which nothing is finally settled between the; parties,'and such we consider the order for an account in this case, which, in the language of the. chancellor, was only preparatory to a final decree, and was liable to be reviewed by him at pleasure. It settles nothing in controversy between the litigating parties; but after an account taken, the chancellor, without a bill .of review ipight, on further proof, or on more mature consideration^ hare rejected the account, and dismissed the complainant’s bill, if the proceedings had not been arrested by the appeal. And if upon this appeal, we were to undertake to inquire into the correctness of the order for an account, we should be obliged to go into an examination.of the whole merits of the case, and in rejecting or affirming the order, to.decide upon that on which the chancellor has. made no decree, and which could only properly be brought before us after.a final adjudication in the court of chancery.

On the suggestion, that it was the practice of -this.court to entertain appeals from orders of this.description, we have examined, and can find no such case as this, none in which, something more was not decreed, and some question of right settled between the parties, except the case of Berry vs. Johnson, which is said to be similar to this, but that cause, passed sub siUntio, apd cannot be called into pree^ dent

It is easy to perceive, that appeals from orders of this description might be productive of great inconvenience and vexatious delays, which should not be incurred without necessity; and there can be no such necessity where nothing is done conclusive upon the chancellor; but the order re-' mains open, subject to his final disposition, and may be rescinded on motion.

APPEAL HISMISSEP.