Young v. Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co.
Young v. Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This appeal is simply from an order of the court below refusing to allow the appellants to become parties defendant to a hill in chancery filed against other parties. No final decree has been entered in the case, and until such decree is entered how can it possibly be known- that this refusal has .prejudiced appellants’ rights? It may be that decree will accomplish, without appellants’ intervention, precisely what they claim ought to be done. The order is clearly interlocutory, and therefore not the subject of an appeal. Racine and Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. 70 Ill. 249; Gage v. Eich et al. 56 id. 297; Woodside v. Woodside, 21 id. 207.
The appeal must he dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Appeal dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Henry L. Young v. The Matthiesen and Hegeler Zinc Company
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeal—does not lie from interlocutory order. An appeal will not lie from a mere interlocutory order in a suit in chancery, as, from an order refusing to allow one to become a party defendant to the bill, there being no final decree in the case. Until such decree is entered it can not be known that the refusal has prejudiced the applicant’s rights.