Case Name: Fretwell v. Wayt and Winn
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1823-04-05
Citations: 1 Rand. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fretwell v. Wayt and Winn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Fretwell v. Wayt and Winn.
April, 1823.
Interlocutory Decree — What Constitutes — Appeals, — Where an appeal is taken from an interlocutory decree of a county court to the court of chancery, and that court aifirms the decree, and an appeal is taken to the court of appeals; the decree of the court of chancery will be considered as interlocutory.
The only question in this case was whether the decree of the chancellor was interlocutory or final.
*Fretwell filed a bill of injunction in the county court of Albemarle, against Wayt and Winn and others. The injunction was granted, and afterwards dissolved. From this order of dissolution, an appeal was granted to the Staunton chancery court, where the order was affirmed. Fretwell appealed to- this court.
The counsel for the appellees, moved^ to dismiss the appeal, (the appellant having been called, and not appearing,) on the ground that the decree of the chancellor was interlocutory only; and that under the law, the appellee may call up an interlocutory decree, at any time within sixty days.
See monographic note on “Decrees” appended to Evans v. Spurgin, 11 Gratt. 615.

Opinion:
JUDGE BROOKE,
April 5th. — delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this case is, whether the decree of the chancery court, affirming the decree of the county court, is interlocutory or final. If final, the appeal must take its turn on the docket, and cannot now be dismissed upon calling the appellant. If interlocutory only, the appellee has a right to call it up within the sixty days prescribed by the act of assembly, and it may be dismissed unless prosecuted by the appellant.
The court, upon consideration of the provisions of the act, is inclined to give^ it a construction, which will best accord with the obvious intention of the legislature. An appeal from an interlocutory decree in such case, was allowed by the act, to avoid expense and .delay, and in order to settle the principles of the cause. The direction in the.act, that the record is to be sent to this court, within two calendar months, and the appeal to he heard and determined, within sixty days, was intended to effect the same object.
If in this case then, the decree is to be considered a final decree, because it has been affirmed in the court of chancery, the provisions of the act in relation to interlocutory decrees, would be defeated.
*The court, therefore, is of opinion, that the decree of the chancery court, affirming the decree of the county court, has not changed its character, and that both 'decrees are still to be considered as interlocutory; and that the appellant having been called and failing to answer, the appeal is to be dismissed.