dressed." Discretionary rulings during trial are not reviewed even when the appeal is entertained. Cases will be cited elsewhere.98 A verdict set aside, or a refusal to do so, on considerations addressed to discretion, as excessiveness or sufficiency of evidence, is not reviewable, while, if error of law be the ground, the ruling is reviewable." 2 "Merits," "principles of the cause," "orders preventing judgment," etc."Merits" of the controversy are not involved by a refusal to hear a motion to dismiss before a demurrer.1 "Principles of the cause" cannot be settled by an appeal from exceptions to a pleading because too vague or uncertain, nor by judgment on demurrer against an additional bill, which, however, is not supplemental. Denial of a transfer of the cause is not appealable "to avoid delay" or decide "principles." Judgment is not "prevented" by refusal to dismiss the action, or by discharging attachment, or by refusing to strike an application to amend for the purpose of recovering on a quantum meruit for a public improvement after a procedendo to enter injunction against a special assessment.' Dismissing an action for failure to bring it timely to trial after reversal is not a determination of the action preventing an appealable judgment; nor is a refusal to extend such time one. 2. Rulings relating to pleadings and process, and before trial.-Orders denying the right to become a party (in a few states), or sustaining10 or dissolving jurisdictional process,11 may be reviewed, but not the mere dissolution of,12 or refusal to quash, attachments.13 Rulings on motions to amend or strike a pleading, 80 as to be appealable-Smith v. Pyrites Min. & C. Co. (Va.) 43 S. E. 564. 4. Code, § 34-Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 79 Miss. 510. 5. For non-compliance with Rev. St. 1898, C. Spokane Dry Goods Co. v. Fritz, 26 Wash. 433, 67 Pac. 252. V. -Browne V. Croft (Neb.) 91 N. W. 177. Refusal to set aside a verdict for insufficiency of evidence-Crossen V. Oliver, 41 Or. 505, 69 Pac: 308. Relief from orders taken by surprise or excusable neglectDunton v. Harper, 64 S. C. 338. Decree for § 2632-Benolkin v. Guthrie, 111 Wis. 554. costs in equity-West v. East Coast Cedar Co. (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. 742. Denial of leave to amend as matter of right-Hanley v. Board of County Com'rs, 87 Minn. 209. Refusal to exact cost bond or affidavit-Spicer v. Holbrook, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1812. Surrogate's refusal to resettle an order-In re Sondheim, 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 5. Setting aside of default during term-Norton v. Maddox (Tex. Civ. App.) 66 S. W. 319. Assignment of cause to one of two unoccupied trial terms-Collis v. Press Pub. Co., 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 38. Motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence-Streep v. McLoughlin. 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 165; overruling motion for rehearing-Clerks' Inv. Co. v. Sydnor, 19 App. D. C. 89. Motion to amend is discretionary though statute gives it of right subject to terms imposed-Snook v. Munday, 96 Md. 514. 7. Allen v. Davenport, 115 Iowa, 20. 8. Rev. St. 1898, §§ 3069, 3072-Sutton Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 114 Wis. 647. 9. Rutledge v. Tunno, 63 S. C. 205. 97. Appeal lies from decree on bill to vacate decree for fraud-Hendryx v. Perkins (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. 801. 98. See infra, § 13-"Rulings peculiar to province of trial court." 99. Wood v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 131 N. C. 48 And see Streep v. McLoughlin, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 165. 1. Garthwaite v. Bank of Tulare, 134 Cal. 237. 66 Pac. 326. 2. Answer disclosed no defense-Wallace v. Bobbitt, 79 Miss. 402. 3. A stockholder's bill to enforce a contract whereby he was to buy up a corporate property, is not supplemental to his bill for with receivership, though filed it. and hence a judgment against it on demurrer does not adjudge the principles of the cause a Contra, see 17 Am. & Eng. Encyc. La w (1st Ed.) 648; Wenborn v. Boston, 23 Cal. 321; Cobre Grande Copper Co. v. Greene (Ariz.) 68 Pac. 524. Conditional leave to intervene was set aside before the party had come in and the petition showed only a case for leave in discretion of the court: not appealable-Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City & A. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 110 Fed. 28. 10. Against one who specially appearsPlano Mfg. Co. v. Kaufert. 86 Minn. 13. 11. Discharge of trustees after dissolution of attachment-Sprague v. Auffmordt (Mass.) 66 N. E. 416. Nonsuiting attachment action not a dismissal of writ for irregularity-Gates v. Avery, 112 Wis. 271. 12. Dissolution or vacation of attachment before judgment-Machen v. Keeler (N. M.) 68 Pac. 937; Jung v. Myer (N. M.) 68 Pac. 933. Order (before 1901) discharging attachment neither determines action nor prevents judgment-Spokane Dry Goods Co. v. Fritz, 26 Wash. 433, 67 Pac. 252. 13. Refusal to quash foreign attachment -Bellah v. Poole, 202 Pa. 71. 14. Denial of leave to amend-Ayers v. Makely, 131 N. C. 60. To amend notice of election contest-Hanley v. Board of Com'rs Cass County, 87 Minn. 209. 15. Demurrer-Breeding 135 Ala. 497. V. Grantland, or for security for costs,16 unless the right to it be statutory," or to change the venue,18 do not ordinarily affect any substantial right nor have appealable finality. Contra, as to an amendment out of time to conform to proof.19 21 If, on demurrer, the ruling must be final,20 which it is not if the demurrer be special, or if leave be given to amend,22 or a pleading23 or count or cause of action be left standing.25 The judgment, and not the mere ruling against demurrant, is appealable.20 Judgments on dilatory pleas are not final.27 82 3. Dismissals, nonsuits, orders to strike cause, etc.-Dismissals determining the cause are reviewable; 28 otherwise, not.29 Neither is a refusal to dismiss.30 A ruling on a "motion" to dismiss an action as having abated will not be deemed to be judgment on a plea in abatement, which is not appealable. If it works a final disposal of the cause, an order striking it, or permitting a voluntary dismissal after allowing opening of an adverse judgment, is reviewable. A voluntary nonsuit, or an order taking one off, is not reviewable, except involuntary nonsuit," or ruling on motion to set it aside, is.38 tachment action is not a dismissal of the writ for irregularity. a verdict after disagreement is not final." 35 16. Refusal to require security for costs (Rev. St. 1898, § 3069)-Cullen v. Hanisch, 114 Wis. 24. 17. Watson v. Glassie, 95 Md. 658. 18. Rulings on change of venue (Comp. Laws, 3422)-Peters v. Jones, 26 Nev. 259, 66 Pac. 745. 33 39 36 by statute. An Nonsuiting an atRefusal to direct cedure and not to jurisdiction is not finalPuritan Trust Co. v. Coffey, 180 Mass. 610. Dilatory plea to an interpleaded claimant's answer, the liability remaining undecidedHely v. Lee, 108 Tenn. 715. Motion to dismiss on abatable grounds not a plea in abatement-Brown v. Kellogg, 182 Mass. 19. Wicker v. Messinger, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 297. 712, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 425. 28. Without prejudice after submitting cause (Code, § 4101)-Carney v. Reed (Iowa) 91 N. W. 759. Denial of extension of time to proceed after reversal and grant of new trial and dismissal on cross motion-Sutton v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 114 Wis. 647. 20. Sustaining demurrer to complaint for injunction, plaintiff not pleading overPeters v. Lewis, 28 Wash. 366, 68 Pac. 869; see also infra, this section. Sustaining demurrer of only defendant of whom jurisdiction was had-Lough v. John Davis & Co. (Wash.) 70 Pac. 491. Sustaining demurrer 29. Dismissal of part of defendants aland entering dismissal and final judgment-leged to be jointly liable-Carmichael People v. City Council, 97 Ill. App. 72. Texarkana (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. 845. Dis21. Special demurrer for misjoinder-missal of a cross-libel in admiralty-BowLeavitt v. S. D. Mercer Co. (Neb.) 89 N. W. ker v. United States, 186 U. S. 135, 46 Law. 426. Ed. 1090. 22. Walker v. Nat'l G. Loan & Trust Co., 133 Ala. 240. Sustaining demurrer with leave to amend, also allowing appeal to settle the principles of the case-Barrier v. Kelly (Miss.) 32 So. 999. 23. To amended bill leaving first bill standing-Hobson v. Hobson, 4 Va. Sup. Ct. R. 156. 24. To one of two counts without passing on the other-Greig v. Elliot, 29 Colo. 283, 68 Pac. 237. 25. Demurrer by sureties and awarding costs but overruling demurrer by principal defendant (Code Civ. Pr. § 939)-Nolan v. Smith, 137 Cal. 360, 70 Pac. 166. 26. Stromberg-Carlson Tel. Mfg. Co. v. Bisbee, 115 Ga. 346; Padley v. Gregg, 26 Wash. 322, 67 Pac. 72. To petition for prohibition and sustaining temporary writDumont v. Payne, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 288. Το petition for condemnation of land-Parker v. Superior Ct., Snohomish County, 25 Wash. 544, 66 Pac. 154. Order directing judgment overruling plaintiff's demurrer and dismissing complaint-Gabay v. Doane (N. Y.) 66 App. Div. 507. V. 27. Plea to Jurisdiction of the person- Veatch v. Norman, 95 Mo. App. 500. Crowley v. Richards (Iowa) 89 N. W. 4. Orders directing or arresting judgment, or on motion for new trial, are not reviewable at common law," or generally, because lying in discretion,12 but in some states are made so by statute. Referring a cause to the assignment list after disagreement of the jury is not a grant of a "new trial," which is appealable if it affects a substantial right," nor is setting aside a voluntary nonsuit entered to avoid an objection to evidence.❝5 47 5. Final judgment or decree. The adjudication must be finally determinative of the controversy, and must substantially affect the rights of parties. Substantial rights are not affected by the court's assigning reasons for giving to a plaintiff the relief which he demands.48 51 It must be so far final that, if affirmed, nothing remains to the trial court but to execute it; but it may be final, though it open or give rise to other causes of action,50 or leave some questions reserved or undecided. It is not final if the case be retained. If a refusal to enter judgment on a mandate be merely to permit the trial of a newly-asserted claim, it is not final, but in substance a postpone 52 41. Order for judgment non obstante- | 369. Default judgment after improper reSanderson v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Minn.) fusal to transfer cause to another district 92 N. W. 542. Arresting judgment-Brazel-Goldman v. Jacobs, 38 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) v. New South Coal Co., 131 Ala. 416. New trial not in federal courts-South Penn Oil Co. v. Latshaw (C. C. A.) 111 Fed. 598. 42. Streep v. McLoughlin (N. Y.) 36 Misc. 165. Setting aside verdict and ordering new trial at same term-Bird v. Bradburn, 131 N. C. 488. 781. Orders held not final: Judgment overruling special plea to jurisdiction-Ross V. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353. Final judgment on demurrer as to one defendant only not final so as to be reviewable by error-Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Peper (Mo. App.) 70 S. W. 910; Rock Island Implement Co. v. Marr. 168 Mo. 252. Order fixing a priority but not determining the amount-Davis v. McCullouch, 192 Ill. 277. Decree fixing rights of annuitant in lands of an estate but suspended until reference to adjudicate further 43. Code, 4101-Boyce v. Timpe (Iowa) | 89 N. W. 83. Denying new trial in proceedings to distribute an estate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1722)-In re Davis' Estate (Mont.) 70 Pac. 721. Probate court decisions on motion for new trial not included in statute relating to "circuit or city courts" (Code, § 434)-rights-Ohio River R. Co. v. Fisher (C. C. Beatty v. Hobson, 133 Ala. 270. 44. The fact that plaintiff had moved to amend before defendant appealed did not raise any substantial right in defendantDossett v. St. Paul & T. Lumber Co., 28 Wash. 618, construing Ball. Ann. Codes & St. §§ 5006, 5007, 5070, 5071, 6500, subd. 6. 45. Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Hansen, 135 Ala. 284. 46. Finality is a necessary element of orders other than judgments and decrees determinative of the action. As to such, see subsections 6-9 following. Bock v. Grooms, (Neb.) 90 N. W. 204; Brodhead v. Minges, 99 Ill. App. 435; Coleridge Creamery Co. v. Jenkins (Neb.) 92 N. W. 123; De Harrison v. Perea (N. M.) 70 Pac. 558. When trial is to jury order must be final-Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Magill (Neb.) 89 N. W. 170. Circuit court decree not appealable to supreme court on the merits until entirely disposed of-Covington v. First Nat. Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 46 Law. Ed. 906. A.) 115 Fed. 929. Refusal to enter default -Brockway v. W. & T. Smith Co. (Colo. App.) 66 Pac. 1073. Decree subjecting lands of trustee to payment of trust moneys and referring to commissioner to state accounts -Savings & B. & L. Ass'n v. Tart (Miss.) 30 So. 693. Report of referee stating an account-Shankle v. Whitley, 131 N. C. 168. Confirmation of commissioner's report-Paul v. Wetlauf, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1480. 48. Where an injunction based on prescriptive rights was granted partly on the ground that a statutory right warranted it Hume v. Turner (Or.) 70 Pac. 611. 49. Brodhead v. Minges, 99 Ill. App. 435. 50. A decree on original bill in the nature of a bill of review impeaching a decree for fraud and letting the parties proceed in the original suit-Hendryx v. Perkins (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. 801. Judgment on dismissal of suit, but referring damages from issuing of injunction therein-West v. East Coast Cedar Co. (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. 742. 51. Railroad Commission v. Weld, 95 Tex. 278. Partition decree for sale is final though rights in proceeds remain undecided-East Coast Cedar Co. v. People's Bank (C. C. A.) 111 Fed. 446. Adjudication of one legatee's rights on bill to construe will-Hawes v. Kepley, 28 Ind. App. 306. 47. Orders held final: Denial of petition to be appointed guardian and reinstatement of former guardian-Arthur v. Reed, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 574. Decree to sell mortgaged land-Kronenberger v. Heinemann, 104 Ill. App. 156. Final injunction against discontinuing a telephone service so long as the defendant continues in business in the jurisdiction-Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. V. Assessment of taxes against national Manning, 186 U. S. 238, 46 Law. Ed. 1144. decreed null and case reserved to inConfirmation of referee's report on reference quire into future assessments-Covington of damages on injunction bond-Wisconsin v. First Nat. Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 46 Law. Ed. M. & F. Ins. Co. Bank v. Durner, 114 Wis.' 906. Decree finding that one mortgage was 52. bank 83 ment. It must be res adjudicata as to all parties who were brought in, but need not be as to others merely named as parties; and it does not suffice that a judgment was entered for one co-party on an amended petition alleging that he had taken a transfer of the others' rights.55 6. Orders and adjudications in interlocutory or provisional, extraordinary, and special proceedings.—Interlocutory or provisional orders are not separately reviewable,56 in the absence of legislation. Those intermediate orders and rulings which go up for review with the main judgment are the subject of a later section of this article. This section refers only to their separate appealability."7 58 Statutes in most states designate certain proceedings or orders therein, and certain interlocutory orders, which may be appealed or reviewed. An enumeration of particular ones excludes the reviewability of others.59 A statute giving appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases does not include special statutory proceedings, and this meaning is not enlarged by a provision that writs of error or appeals shall lie in the same manner as provided for the supreme court. A proceeding before a judge, as such, is not reviewable as a proceeding before the court.62 A statute of a territory giving an appeal from interlocutory orders is void if the organic act provides for review of final orders only.63 These orders must be final," or affect a substantial right." Allowing an ap paid and ordering retention of cause on the other to await other litigation-Brodhead v. Minges, 198 Ill. 513. 53. Justice v. Phillips, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 290. 54. Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co. v. John Featherstone's Sons (C. C. A.) 111 Fed. 81. Judgment on one demurrer only-Pittsburgh P. G. Co. v. Peper (Mo. App.) 70 S. W. 910. 55. Joint suit to recover land-Jackson v. Coombs (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S. W. 385. 56. Coleridge Creamery Co. V. Jenkins (Neb.) 92 N. W. 123; De Harrison v. Perea (N. M.) 70 Pac. 558. - 57. Section 13, infra. 58. Temporary alimony Eickhoff V. Eickhoff, 29 Colo. 295, 68 Pac. 237; Motley v. Motley, 93 Mo. App. 473; Marx v. Marx, 94 Mo. App. 172. Allowance of counsel fees to wife in divorce is appealable though made pending a second trial, and also as a final order affecting a substantial rightSchuster v. Schuster, 84 Minn. 403. An alimony decree in Louisiana before final judgment appealable regardless of amount (Const. 1898, art. 85)-Dale v. Hauer (La.) 33 So. 741. Refusal to grant removal to federal courts is not within Code, § 34, allowing granting of an appeal from interlocutory orders "to state principles" or "avoid delay"-Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Vicksburg, 79 Miss. 510. 62. To compel delivery of papers under Pol. Code, § 272-Albea v. Watts, 114 Ga. 149. Applications for certiorari-Brockton v. Plymouth County Com'rs (Mass.) 66 N. E. 427; or habeas corpus-Ex parte Cox (Fla.) 33 So. 509. €3. Laws 1901, c. 82-Jung Myer (N. M.) 68 Pac. 933; Laws 1899. c. 75, §§ 8, 9Machen v. Keeler (N. M.) 68 Pac. 937. 64. Final orders: Refusal to compel delivery of books, etc., to public officer under Code Civ. Pr. § 2471a, is appealable-In re Brenner, 170 N. Y. 185. Reversal of order continuing a proceeding to settle an administrator's account, ordering objections withdrawn and account approved, is a final order in a special proceeding which goes to the court of appeals-In re Fitzsimons, 174 N. Y. 15. Decision under Rev. St. arts. 4564-4566, that certain rates of freight were unreasonable and giving no other relief; statute provides that reasonableness shall be the only issue tried-Railroad Commission v. Weld, 95 Tex. 278. Refusal to make a rule to pay money absolute--Hollis v. Nelms, 115 Ga. 5. State may appeal in proceedings for indirect contempt (Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 1915)-State v. Rockwood (Ind.) 64 N. E. Orders not final: Judgment with findings 592. By statute in Oregon, one adjudged to in habeas corpus but leaving child in rebe in contempt may appeal as in an action-spondent's custody until further order is State v. Gray (Or.) 70 Pac. 904. not final-Hart v. Cotten (Fla.) 31 So. 817. 59. Refusal to vacate an order denying Decree for possession pending taking of appointment of administrator ad litem not final proofs and hearing-Lewis v. New enumerated (Rev. St. 1899, § 806)-Creech Music Hall Co., 100 Ill. App. 415. Order to v. Young, 94 Mo. App. 90. Order quashing remove fence pending action for permanent information to remove county commission-removal-McKinney V. Thomson, 24 Ky. ers (Rev. St. § 4807)-Mahoney v. Elliott Law Rep. 337. Order for accounting in a (Idaho) 69 Pac. 108. Provisions for appeal-partition suit-Glos v. Clark, 199 Ill. 147. plication to amend after a procedendo in an injunction suit to prevent a special assessment, so that defendant might recover on a quantum meruit, goes to the merits, and is material. If the same questions arise on appeal from final judg ment, or if an interlocutory decree has passed into final decree, the appeal must be from the latter. Refusal of nonsuit should be reviewed on appeal from judgment or from motion for a new trial.69 67 68 A decision on lunacy proceedings finding the person sane is not appealable in Indiana.70 Provisional orders for relief.—It is not the "grant, refusal, continuance, or modification of a provisional remedy" to refuse to limit an examination." Injunctional orders are generally made reviewable,72 when made on hearing, and not in vacation. The refusal of an injunction is an exception in some jurisdictions." A dismissal of a complaint for an injunction may be appealable as refusing an injunction or on demurrer, if substantially that, though irregular ;75 and a refusal to dissolve a temporary restraining order or injunction may be regarded as equivalent to granting one. A refusal to grant or dissolve a preliminary injunction is not now appealable to the United States circuit court of appeals." In Louisiana, dissolution of an injunction against acts which, if done, may be adequately reparable in money, is not appealable. There should, as in other cases, be some invasion of substantial right or effect upon the merits and a final decision.79 76 terlocutory order of injunction-Powell v. Canaday, 96 Mo. App. 27. Right may be lost by proceeding to trial of main issueSharples v. Baker, 100 Ill. App. 108. Order nisi to remove trustee-Chappell v. | Large, p. 673)-Williams v. Jones, 62 S. C. Clarke, 94 Md. 178. Denial of application | 472. Rev. St. 1899, § 806, dissolution of inby attorneys for creditors to be recognized as attorneys for an insolvent estate-In re People's Sav. Bank (Colo. App.) 71 Pac. 397, 398. Order in special tax proceedings setting aside dismissals of certain defendants and construing statutes, then referring the case-Specht v. Barber Asphalt Co., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 887. Order to executor to file inventory and account-In re Allen's Estate, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 32; or to petition for sale of land-Lane v. Thorn, 103 Ill. App. 215. Order dismissing attorney's petition for allowance from estate because not brought up on accounting of executor who employed him-Nash v. Wakefield, 30 Wash. 556, 71 Pac. 35. G5. A determination under the Iowa statutes that a consent to the sale of liquors was sufficient affects such a right-Porter v. Butterfield, 116 Iowa, 725. A non-taxpaying applicant for removal of an officer is not substantially affected by an adverse decision-In re Aldrich, 114 Wis. 308. Orders in administration must decide rights, affect merits or aggrieve partiesLane v. Thorn, 103 Ill. App. 215. Refusal to revoke probate affects a substantial right, 1. e., to declare an escheat-State v. Tallman, 29 Wash. 317, 69 Pac. 1101. Appointment of appraisers of an estate does notMayrand v. Mayrand, 96 Ill. App. 478. 66. Allen v. Davenport, 115 Iowa, 20. 67. Dismissal of complaint-Kelly Theiss, 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 81. V. 68. Judgment against cross-bill on demurrer merged into dismissal of cross-billWilder v. Dunne (Fla.) 33 So. 508. 69. Brauer v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 407. 73. On hearing-Fuller v. Schutz (Minn.) 93 N. W. 118. In Alaska an interlocutory grant or dissolution of an injunction is appealable (Alaska Code, § 507), though not on a "hearing in equity." as it must be under the federal practice, which so far as ap plicable is adapted to Alaska-Lane v. Jordon (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. 623. Orders of judges granting or refusing to dissolve injunctions in vacation-Hawkins v. Burwell, 191 Ill. 389; Sharples v. Baker, 100 Ill. App. 108. 74. Remedy was to apply to supreme court-Hudson v. Barham (Va.) 43 S. E. 189. Contra: Dissolution of writ of temporary injunction-Stansbury v. Storer (Neb.) 91 N. W. 197. Refusal to dissolve injunction-United States Heater Co. v. Iron Molders' Union (Mich.) 88 N. W. 889. 75. The demurrer was coupled with answer and the judgment ignored the merits pleaded by answer-Quayle v. Bayfield County, 114 Wis. 108. 76. Act of Congress, Feb. 9, 1893-McFarland v. Washington, A. & M. V. R. Co.. 18 App. D. C. 456. Refusal to dissolve injunction (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, c. 22. § 52) is equivalent to granting one-Hately Myers, 96 Ill. App. 217. V. 77. Since Act Cong. June 6, 1900-March v. Romare (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. 354; Berliner Gram. Co. v. Seaman (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. 750. 78. Injunction against execution saleGlobe Lumber Co. v. Griffeth, 107 La. 621. 79. Order granting temporary allowance for alimony is not a "trial" and not final71. Rev. St. 1898, 3069-State v. Mathys Stewart v. Stewart, 28 Ind. App. 378. (Wis.) 91 N. W. 114. 70. State v. Branyan (Ind. App.) 66 N. E. 464. Injunctional orders affecting substantial 72. Interlocutory injunction (23 Stat. at rights: Against operation of a ginnery |