From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hankerson v. Tillman

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
May 1, 1952
88 A.2d 191 (D.C. 1952)

Opinion

No. 1192.

Argued April 14, 1952.

Decided May 1, 1952.

APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS.

Garfield C. Thompson, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Arthur G. Tillman, pro se.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD, and QUINN, Associate Judges.


The proceedings below consisted of a claim on a promissory note, counterclaim for money due and various motions. This appeal is from the action of the trial court in overruling a motion to vacate an order overruling a motion for summary judgment, overruling a motion to dismiss, overruling a motion for production of documents, and ordering plaintiff to file an answer to the counterclaim by a specified date. Obviously these are all interlocutory matters. No final judgment or order has been entered. This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders only when such orders change or affect possession of property. Code 1940, Supp. VII, 11-772. The orders complained of are not appealable.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Hankerson v. Tillman

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
May 1, 1952
88 A.2d 191 (D.C. 1952)
Case details for

Hankerson v. Tillman

Case Details

Full title:HANKERSON v. TILLMAN

Court:Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Date published: May 1, 1952

Citations

88 A.2d 191 (D.C. 1952)

Citing Cases

Meadis v. Atlantic Construction Supply Co.

Appellee concedes that since more than ninety days had passed from entry of judgment to filing of the motion…

Jenkins v. Parker

Ordinarily, an interlocutory order cannot be appealed. See Moyer v. Moyer, D.C.Mun.App., 134 A.2d 649, 650…