Opinion
No. 37194.
October 10, 1949.
1. Appeal — interlocutory decree — refusing to set aside decree pro confesso — appeal dismissed, when.
An appeal from an interlocutory decree refusing to set aside a decree pro confesso will be dismissed when the appeal will not settle all the controlling principles in the case, and especially so when appellant failed to show any meritorious defense or the absence of neglect.
2. Appeal — interlocutory decree — dismissal of appeal by the court of its own motion.
The appealability of an interlocutory decree may be raised by the Supreme Court ex mero motu.
Headnotes as approved by Alexander, J.
An interlocutory appeal from the chancery court of Pike County; R.W. CUTRER, Chancellor.
McClaren Allen, and Cassidy, McLain Alford, for appellants.
Gordon Gordon, for appellee.
Appellee filed its bill to remove cloud upon and to confirm title to certain lands. Appellants, together with the State of Mississippi and the Humble Oil and Refining Company, were made defendants. Answers were filed by all defendants except appellants.
Appellants were granted additional time to answer and upon failure so to do suffered a decree pro confesso. About six months thereafter they filed their motion to set aside this decree. From an adverse ruling thereupon they appeal.
(Hn 1) The interlocutory appeal allowed by the chancellor was not "to settle all the controlling principles involved in the cause." Code 1942, Section 1148. Moreover, there was made no showing of a meritorious defense nor an absence of neglect. Griffith, Chancery Practice, Sections 267, 268.
It is true that the bill was later amended but not in any matter material to the appellants. (Hn 2) The appealability of this interlocutory decree can be questioned by this Court ex mero motu. Woodson v. Doyle, 196 Miss. 308, 16 So.2d 852.
Appeal dismissed.