Court Opinion

ID: 8857905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:37:03.937279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:43.406180
License: Public Domain

MAXEY, District Judge,
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The manner in which this cause was heard finds no warrant in the rules of correct chancery practice, and the order made upon the hearing of the demurrer is altogether irregular. This court, however, cannot enter upon a consideration of these questions, nor determine those raised by the assignment of errors, as we are satisfied the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained because the order made by the court is not a final decree. It is in the nature of a conditional order, its finality depending upon certain contingencies that might or might not occur. The decree passed in suit No. 235, November 18, 1893, was ordered to be vacated and the cause reopened, and leave granted appellees to file an answer therein, if they should within 30 days deposit $4,000 in the registry of the court, and pay all the costs of this suit and in suit No. 235. But if the costs should not be paid, nor the deposit of $4,000 made, within the 30 days, or if the answer should not be filed within the time allowed, the decree in cause No. 235 was to remain in full force; and (using the concluding language of the decree) “complainants’ bill in this cause will thereupon stand dismissed as on final hearing, and all costs in this cause incurred in that event adjudged against them, for which execution may issue.” Something more was required to make the decree final than was done in this case. If appellees failed to do what the order required to be done within the prescribed time, appellants should have applied to the court for a final decree dismissing the bill. If the order of court was fully complied with by appellees, a final decree should have been passed, upon-their application, reversing the decree in suit No. 235, and reopening that cause for further proceedings. Speaking of an order similar in some of its aspects to the one now before the court, Mr. Justice Miller, as the organ of the court, in Jones’ Adm’r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 215, 216, 8 Sup. Ct. 1175, says:
“This order, made upon the hearing of the demurrer to a bill in chancery, is wholly irregular. This court, however, has no jurisdiction of the case as it stands, because the order just cited is not a final decree. Something yet remains to be done in order to make it such, and that action depends upon whether or not the complainants will comply with the order to bring in the sum due on the mortgage. If that order is complied with, then a decree should be made, upon the hypothesis on which the order was made, in favor of the complainants in the bill, and quieting their title. If, however,' the money is not brought into court, then, according to the theory of the order, the bill of complaint should be dismissed. But, even assuming the right of the court to make the ordei', as well as its validity, the circumstances under which the bill of complaint is to be dismissed or the relief granted to the complainants named therein, and the sum to be paid, are matters which are yet to be determined, which may turn out either one way or the other, and which, when ascertained, will be the ■foundation for a final decree. There is no final decree as the matter now stands.”
The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.