Ex parte Norton
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
We have had occasion at the present term, in Bostwick v. Brinckerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Grant v. Phœnix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 429; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Southern Express Co., ante, 24, to state the rule applicable to the determination of the question here involved, and we there say:
“ A decree is final for the purpose of an appeal .... when it terminates the litigation between the parties, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.”
Under this rule, we think, this appeal was well taken. The decree settled every question in dispute between the parties, and left nothing to be done but to complete the sale under the proceedings in the State court for foreclosure, and hand over to Norton any surplus of the proceeds there might be after satisfying the debt due Frellsen as stated in the process under which the sale ‘ was made. The case stands precisely as it would if Erellsen were proceeding in the district court for the foreclosure of his mortgage, and a decree had been entered
The writ of mandamus ashed- for is granted, hut without cojsts.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.