Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Edwin J. CREEL, Appellant, v. Robert T. CREEL, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeals in Nos. 8770 and 8823 are dismissed, on motion of appellee, because each was taken from a non-appealable order. The judgment of the court in No. 8910 is affirmed, as an examination of the record reveals no error and requires the conclusion that the trial court properly execised its discretion in confirming the order of sale.

See D.C. Code (1940) § 17 — 101; Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U.S. 246, 248, 23 L. Ed. 318; Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co., 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 665; Electric Boat Co. v. East Hampton Shipping Co., 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 542; The St. Paul, 2 Cir., 262 F. 1021, certiorari denied, 252 U.S. 578, 40 S.Ct. 344, 64 L.Ed. 725; Fidelity Storage Co. v. Jaques, 61 App.D.C. 337, 62 F.2d 876; King v. Harrington, 35 App.D.C. 111, 115; Cf. Chas. McCaul Co. v. Harr, 51 App.D.C. 111, 113, 276 F. 633, 635.

Nos. 8770 and 8823 dismissed.

No. 8910 affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CREEL v. CREEL
(May 21, 1945)