Court Opinion

ID: 6890930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:41:08.381427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:50.212685
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The appeals in Nos. 8770 and 8823 are dismissed, on motion of appellee, because each was taken from a non-appealable order.1 The judgment of the court in No. 8910 is affirmed, as an examination of the record reveals no error and requires the conclusion that the trial court properly execised its discretion in confirming the order of sale.
Nos. 8770 and 8823 dismissed.
No. 8910 affirmed.

 See D.C.Code (1940) § 17 — 101; Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U.S. 246, 248, 23 L. Ed. 318; Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co., 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 665; Electric Boat Co. v. East Hampton Shipping Co., 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 542; The St. Paul, 2 Cir., 262 F. 1021, certiorari denied, 252 U.S. 578, 40 S.Ct. 344, 64 L.Ed. 725; Fidelity Storage Co. v. Jaques, 61 App.D.C. 337, 62 F.2d 876; King v. Harrington, 35 App.D.C. 111, 115; Cf. Chas. McCaul Co. v. Harr, 51 App.D.C. 111, 113, 276 F. 633, 635.