Summary
In Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601, the court held that an order of the district court denying a motion to make one Skiles a third-party defendant was not a final judgment subject to review under Rule 111, R.C.P. Colo. It was also stated, in that opinion, "Where it appears on review that there is no final judgment, as is here disclosed, the writ of error will be dismissed."
Summary of this case from Schoenwald v. SchoenOpinion
No. 15,124.
Decided March 30, 1942.
In an action to quiet title, plaintiff in error, appearing as an "unknown party," filed a cross complaint and motion asking, inter alia, that a third person be made a party to the suit, which was denied. She seeks a review of that ruling.
Writ of Error Dismissed.
1. APPEAL AND Error — Writ of Error — Final Judgment. Save in the exceptional instances mentioned in the Rules of Civil Procedure, a writ of error lies to a final judgment only.
2. Writ of Error — Final Judgment — Dismissal. Where orders of the trial court are interlocutory, questions with respect thereto may be presented only on review of the final judgment, and where it appears that no final judgment has been entered, the writ of error directed to a review of such interlocutory matters will be dismissed.
Error to the District Court of Moffat County, Hon. Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Mr. E. G. VANATTA, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. GEORGE A. PUGHE, for defendant in error.
PLAINTIFF in error here seeks to have reviewed an order of the district court denying her motion to make one Lovetta Skiles a third party defendant in a pending suit to quiet title brought by defendant in error and in which plaintiff in error appeared as a defendant. The motion is said to be grounded upon Rule 14, R. C. P. Colo., and assertedly is supported by certain affirmative allegations of the answer of plaintiff in error.
[1, 2] Save in the exceptional instances mentioned in (a) (2), (3) and (4), Rule 111, R.C.P. Colo., a writ of error lies to a final judgment only. The practice under the Code was analagous (section 425). The order herein questioned comes within none of the foregoing exceptions and is not a final judgment. As to the requirements of such, see Boxwell v. Greeley Union National Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179. The order being interlocutory, questions with respect thereto may be presented only on a review of the final judgment. Where it appears on review that there is no final judgment, as is here disclosed, the writ of error will be dismissed. Marysville Colorado Land Co. v. Heyde, 93 Colo. 523, 27 P.2d 498; Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 223 Pac. 46; Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 Pac. 488.
Accordingly the writ of error is dismissed.