Hankerson v. Tillman

88 A.2d 191, 1952 D.C. App. LEXIS 159
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided May 1, 1952·No. 1192·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

88 A.2d 191 (Hankerson v. Tillman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)