Roth v. Mercantile Bank
This text of 41 App. D.C. 293 (Roth v. Mercantile Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A jurisdictional question avoids consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the Federal courts, appeal or writ of error can be taken only from a final judgment disposing of the case. It follows, therefore, that an appeal will not lie from the order dismissing the banks, while the action is still standing as to the other defendants. United States v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 13 L. ed. 587; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. 148 U. S. 262, 37 L. ed. 443, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Menge v. Warriner, 57 C. C. A. 432, 120 Fed. 817.
For lack of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
41 App. D.C. 293, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-mercantile-bank-cadc-1914.