McArthur v. Blondin

83 A. 468, 86 Vt. 62, 1912 Vt. LEXIS 150
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided May 20, 1912·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When this case was remanded — Blondin v. McArthur et al., 84 Vt. 516—such proceedings were had in the court of chancery that a decree was entered appointing a master to ascertain and report the injunction damages, and restraining the orators from delaying, hindering or preventing the defendants from taking and holding possession of the land and premises in question, “until the further order of court.” Without the defendants’ knowledge, an appeal was allowed-from this decree, which appeal the defendants moved to dismiss, but the motion was overruled.

It is admitted here that so much of the decree as relates to the appointment of a master is not final, but interlocutory merely, and it is apparent that the rest of it is equally so, for it does not touch the merits of the controversy, and is to be in force only “until further order” of the court.

So the decree is one from which no appeal lies, and this Court, even on its own motion, will dismiss the appeal in such cases. Abbott v. Sanders, 83 Vt. 165, 74 Atl. 1058; Taft v. Mossey, 77 Vt. 165, 59 Atl. 166; Nelson v. Brown, 59 Vt. 600, 10 AtL 72.

Appeal dismissed.

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

McArthur v. Blondin, 83 A. 468, 86 Vt. 62, 1912 Vt. LEXIS 150 (Vt. 1912).

83 A. 468 (McArthur v. Blondin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Saund v. Saund
136 A. 22 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald
115 A. 99 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1921)
Page v. Page's Administrator
99 A. 780 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1917)
Vermont Savings Bank v. Bailey
88 A. 561 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1913)