Case Name: ROTH v. MERCANTILE BANK OF WASHINGTON
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1914-01-05
Citations: 41 App. D.C. 293
Docket Number: No. 2569
Parties: ROTH v. MERCANTILE BANK OF WASHINGTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 41
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
ROTH v. MERCANTILE BANK OF WASHINGTON.
Appeal and Error; Final Judgments.
1. In the Federal courts, an appeal or writ of error can be taken only from a final judgment disposing of the cause.
2. A judgment dismissing an action as to one or more of several defendants, on demurrer to the declaration, by all of the defendants, is not a final judgment from which an appeal by the plaintiff will lie to this Court.
No. 2569.
Submitted November 7, 1913.
Decided January 5, 1914.
Hearing on an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing an action as to two of several defendants, all of whom had demurred to the declaration. '
Appeal dismissed.
The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
Action in tort brought in the supreme court of the District of Columbia by .Martin Both, appellant, 1.o recover damages from the appellee hanks, The Mercantile Bank of Washington and The Union Savings Bank, and a number of individual defendants.
Defendants demurred to the declaration, and the deimu'ror was sustained as to the hanks and overruled as to the other defendants. Judgment was entered in favor of the hanks, from which this appeal was taken.
Mr. William Bradfield for the appellant.
Mr. Wilton J. Lambert, Mr. B. W. Parker, and Mr. Joseph W. Cox for the appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Van Orsueu
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A jurisdictional question avoids consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the Federal courts, appeal or writ of error can be taken only from a final judgment disposing of the case. It follows, therefore, that an appeal will not lie from the order dismissing the banks, while the action is still standing as to the other defendants. United States v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 13 L. ed. 587; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. 148 U. S. 262, 37 L. ed. 443, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Menge v. Warriner, 57 C. C. A. 432, 120 Fed. 817.
For lack of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.