Hankerson v. Tillman

88 A.2d 191, 1952 D.C. App. LEXIS 159
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 1, 1952
Docket1192
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 88 A.2d 191 (Hankerson v. Tillman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hankerson v. Tillman, 88 A.2d 191, 1952 D.C. App. LEXIS 159 (D.C. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The proceedings below consisted of a claim on a promissory note, counterclaim for money due and various motions. This appeal is from the action of the trial ' court in overruling a motion to vacate an order overruling a motion for summary judgment, overruling a motion to dismiss, overruling a motion for production of documents, and ordering plaintiff to file an answer to the counterclaim by a specified date. Obviously these are all interlocutory matters. No final judgment or order has been entered. This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders only when such orders change or affect possession of property. Code 1940, Supp. VII, 11-772. The orders complained of are not appealable.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jenkins v. Parker
428 A.2d 367 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)
Diamond Housing Corp. v. Munson
244 A.2d 485 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1968)
Meadis v. Atlantic Construction & Supply Co.
212 A.2d 613 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)
Brenner v. Williams
190 A.2d 263 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1963)
Harco, Inc. v. Greenville Steel and Foundry Company
112 A.2d 920 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.2d 191, 1952 D.C. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankerson-v-tillman-dc-1952.