TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Metzger v. Kelly

Metzger v. Kelly, 34 App. D.C. 548 (D.C. Cir. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 1, 1910
Docket
No. 2079
Judges
Orsdel
Citations
34 App. D.C. 5481910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5848
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
Appeals; Appealable Obdebs. An order sustaining a demurrer to a petition, but not dismissing the petition, is interlocutory and therefore not appealable; and an appeal from such an order will be dismissed by this court on its own motion.
Summary
Hearing on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, of the District of Columbia sustaining a demurrer to an amended petition in a proceeding for an award of damages for the condemnation of certain buildings. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Orsdel

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from an order of the supreme court of the District of Columbia sustaining appellees’ demurrer to appellant’s second amended petition in a proceeding for' an award *549 of damages for the condemnation of insanitary buildings in the District of Columbia. The order appealed from is as follows: “This cause coming on to he heard on demurrer to the second amended petition filed herein, and after argument by counsel and being considered by the court, it is, by the court, this 27th day of August, a. d. 1909, adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the said demurrer be and the same is hereby sustained. * * * From the foregoing decree, the complainant, in open court, notes an appeal to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, and the bond for costs is hereby fixed in the sum of one hundred ($100) dollars.”

This is a mere interlocutory order, sustaining a demurrer. No final judgment was entered in the court below; hence, the appeal is fatally defective. The practice is so uniform that an appeal will not lie from such an order, that discussion or citation of authority is unnecessary. No objection on this point was made by counsel, but the court, on its own motion, will notice such a patent defect in the record, and govern it? action accordingly. The appeal is dismissed, with costs, and it is so ordered. Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11938: 11943: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Southland Industries, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission99 F.2d 117 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
  2. Brown v. Randle & Garvin, Inc.32 A.2d 104 (D.C. 1943)
  3. United States ex rel. Tungsten Reef Mines Co. v. Ickes84 F.2d 257 (D.C. Cir. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list