after this statement of the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

' This appeal cannot be sustained. If it be assumed that the action of the circuit court, in appointing a receiver, or in the issuance of receiver’s certificates, can, under any circumstances, be reviewed in this court, it is sufficient to say that the decrees or orders in that respect are not appealed from. The appellants, apparently concluding that such decrees or orders could directly be brought here for review only by appeal from the final decree in the foreclosure suit, seek by indirection to obtain their review by moving to vacate or modify them, coupling with their demand in that regard a prayer that the receiver sought to be removed from office might be restrained from continuing the management of the railway, and that he and the former receiver might be restrained from • selling ' the-receiver’s certificates; and that Nelson, the proposing púr-"' *207chaser, who was not, and was not sought to be, made a party to the suit, should be restrained from purchasing them. It is said that because such an injunction was asked and denied, although without prejudice, the decrees or orders are now before us for review by virtue of the. statute allowing an appeal from an order denying- an interlocutory injunction. If the decrees or orders in question had been vacated or modified as desired, no injunction would have been necessary. The removal of the receiver would have taken from him all authority in the management of the railroad. The modification of the order for the issuance of the receiver’s certificates, limiting the issuing of them to those already marketed, would withdraw from the receiver all power to issue,1 and, if issued in defiance of the modifying order, the certificates would be inoperative to create any incumbrance upon the mortgaged estate or its revenues. Besides this, there was no suggestion in the petition that either Bosworth, who had resigned as receiver, and whose resignation had been accepted, or Dickson, the present receiver, had ever threatened or proposed to issue certificates otherwise than as directed by the court. It was also quite unnecessary and unwarranted to enjoin one not a party to the suit, and not sought to be made a party, from purchasing certificates which, if unauthorized by the court, would be but so much waste paper, so far as the mortgaged estate is concerned. The prayer for a.n injunction was not germane, is manifestly pretentious merely, and injected into the prayer of the petition without an allegation to sustain it, for the purpose, in case the decrees or orders should not be vacated or modified as desired, of seeking a review here of the decrees or orders from which no direct appeal will lie. The assembling of a prayer for an unnecessary injunction with a prayer for modification of a decree or order will not warrant a review of the decree or order when a direct appeal therefrom is unauthorized by law, even if we assume that an appeal from an order dismissing without prejudice an application for an injunction will lie. It is undoubtedly true that in general a decree dismissing a bill without prejudice is not appealable, and this because a decree is not final for the purposes of an appeal unless it terminates the litigation between the parties upon the merits (St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., 108 U. S. 24, 2 Sup. Ct. 6), and it can scarcely be truthfully said that a decree dismissing an appeal without prejudice purports to pass upon the merits of the bill. Whether, under the statute authorizing an appeal to the circuit courts of appeals from an order denying an interlocutory injunction, an order denying without prejudice an application for such writ of injunction would be appealable, we do not now decide. The appeal will be dismissed.