Opinion
No. 35537.
April 24, 1944.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR.
The Supreme Court would, ex mero motu, determine whether order appealed from was in fact appealable, where doubt as to appealability suggested itself to court on suggestion of error after affirmance of order.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR.
In suit for mandatory injunction to compel defendant to restore water connections, wherein chancellor granted injunction with findings limited to right of injunction reserving the merits and allowed appeal "to settle the principles," chancellor's order was tantamount to fiat for preliminary injunction and was not appealable.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Desoto county, HON. L.A. SMITH, SR., Chancellor.
W.E. Morse, A.M. Nelson, and Green Green, all of Jackson, for appellant.
Our response to the inquiry of the court is that an appeal would lie in this case to the Supreme Court. Independent of the jurisdictional question, an appeal would lie and the cases of Alexander v. Woods, 103 Miss. 869, 60 So. 1017; State Board of Barber Examiners v. Broom, 161 Miss. 679, 137 So. 789; Alexander v. Johnson, 165 Miss. 721, 138 So. 329; Carraway v. State, 163 Miss. 639, 141 So. 342; Reynolds v. City of New Albany, 166 Miss. 282, 146 So. 459; and Montgomery v. Wood (Miss.), 178 So. 471, cited by the court for discussion, are in no way controlling.
Holmes Bowdre, of Hernando, and Herbert Holmes, of Senatobia, for appellee.
We were not altogether unmindful of Section 14 of the Code of 1930 in our failure to move the court to dismiss the appeal, but we were so thoroughly convinced of the correctness of the holding of the learned chancellor that we felt that the case should be affirmed and remanded for a full hearing on all the merits.
The granting or refusing of a preliminary writ is not a final judgment and of course no appeal would lie from same.
See Alexander et al. v. Woods et al., 103 Miss. 869, 60 So. 1017; State Board of Barber Examiners v. Broom, 161 Miss. 679, 137 So. 789; Alexander v. Johnson, 165 Miss. 721, 138 So. 329; Carraway v. State, 163 Miss. 639, 141 So. 342; Reynolds et al. v. City of New Albany, 166 Miss. 282, 146 So. 459; Montgomery et al. v. Wood (Miss.), 178 So. 471.
ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR.
In our original opinion we affirmed the granting by the chancellor of a mandatory injunction against appellant. The prayer of appellee's bill was for such injunction to restore water supply and for damages. The trial judge limited his findings to the right of injunction reserving the merits. Appeal was allowed by the chancellor "to settle the principles."
No point having been made as to the right of appeal, and the hearing having been upon bill, answer and proof, we entertained the appeal. Upon suggestion of error doubt as to the appealability suggested itself to us, and in response to request for briefs upon the point raised ex mero motu (Liberty Trust Co. v. Planters' Bank, 155 Miss. 721, 124 So. 341), neither party seeks to support such doubt. Appellant remains insistent upon the right and duty of the court to settle all the controlling principles of the cause, including the factual issues of liability which relate to the merits, while appellee, being content with an affirmance retaining the preliminary mandatory injunction with remand for hearing upon the merits, withholds endorsement of the court's suggestion.
We have concluded, however, that an appeal does not lie from the order. The merits and controlling principles are not before us. The order of the learned chancellor is tantamount to a fiat for preliminary injunction. Its issuance was the sole object of the inquiry and the only relief granted. Alexander v. Woods, 103 Miss. 869, 60 So. 1017. Compare State Board of Barber Examiners v. Broom, 161 Miss. 679, 137 So. 789; Reynolds v. City of New Albany, 166 Miss. 282, 146 So. 459; Liberty Trust Co. v. Planters' Bank, supra; Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. City of Vicksburg, 5 Cir., 153 F. 116, 82 C.C.A. 250.
In view of the foregoing conclusions, the former opinion is withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.