The rule with respect to final and interlocutory decrees, which
is applied to the preceding case of
Beebe v. Russell again
affirmed and applied.
The bill was filed by Woodfolk, a citizen of Tennessee, against
the heirs and representatives of Frederic Notribe and others for
the purpose of obtaining a title to certain lands. The court
decreed that the defendants should procure the legal extinguishment
of the lien and encumbrance which existed upon the lands, and
convey them to the complainant. The decree also contained a
reference to a master, with the instructions which are stated in
the opinion of the Court. The defendants appealed to this
Court.
MR. JUSTICE WAYNE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case having been submitted to the Court upon printed
arguments, we find from an examination of the record that the
appeal has been prematurely taken from an interlocutory and not a
final decree.
After reciting such facts in the case as the court deemed to be
necessary for understanding the subject matter of controversy, and
the court's directions in respect to the rights of the complainant,
the court then ordered that the cause shall be referred to the
clerk of the court as a special master in chancery, to take and
state an account of the sum for which the lands are bound under the
mortgage exhibited in the pleadings in the cause, and also to take
and state an account showing what money and property Morton and his
wife, and Mary T. Notribe, widow of Frederic Notribe, have
severally received, and are entitled to receive, which were of the
estate of Frederic Notribe at the time of his death, and a further
account showing what portion of said estate, if any, remains to be
administered, setting forth all particulars thereof as far as
practicable, and if necessary to the due execution of this order.
And the master is directed to call for and examine on oath any of
the parties to this suit, and also to take testimony of witnesses
touching any of the matters aforesaid, and to make report to
Page 60 U. S. 289
this Court. This is so obviously an interlocutory decree that we
do not think it necessary to examine it in detail to show that a
further and final decree is necessary to give to the complainant
any of the advantages to which the court in its previous directions
has declared him to be entitled.
For the reasons given in the opinion in the case of
Beebe v.
Russell, we therefore direct this cause to be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.