Opinion ID: 1207624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order Denying the Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Attachment and to Vacate the Writ of Attachment.

Text: We do not reach the merits of the appellant's argument because an order denying the motion to strike the affidavits and to vacate the writ of attachment is not appealable. This court has held that an order, to be appealable, must be final. Finality refers to the nature and effect of the order rather than its chronological position in the case.    It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to define accurately what is or what is not a final decision for the purpose of appeal. A `final' decision for this purpose is not necessarily in every instance the `last' decision in a case. The effect of a decision would seem to be a better test of its finality than the stage at which it was rendered. Barthrop v. Kona Coffee Co., 10 Haw. 398, 400 (1896). That case involved a demurrer by defendant which had been denied and from which defendant appealed. This court held that the order was not appealable because it was not a final determination of substantial rights. The rule suggests that certain seemingly interlocutory orders could be final in nature and thus appealable. For example, in Swift & Co. v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206 (1950) the district court had filed an order vacating an attachment. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 5 Cir., 175 F.2d 513. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to entertain an appeal of that order. The United States Supreme Court held the order appealable because a later review of an order dissolving an attachment would be meaningless because the vessel would be released and events could happen which would make restoration of attachment only theoretically possible. The Court further stated:    The situation is quite different where an attachment is upheld pending determination of the principal claim. Such was Cushing v. Laird, 107 U.S. 69, 2 S.Ct. 196, 27 L.Ed. 391, which is urged on us. In such a situation the rights of all the parties can be adequately protected while the litigation on the main claim proceeds. (p. 689, 70 S.Ct. p. 865) The order granting attachment being unappealable, and the other orders being affirmed, the assumpsit case is remanded for further proceedings.