December 8, 1965
BETTIE MURPHY AND LLOYD MURPHY, HER HUSBAND, AND LLOYD MURPHY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15184
HELENA RUBENSTEIN COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND H. J. TITUS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPELLANTS IN NO. 15185
Before HASTIE, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
On motion, the district court entered an order vacating a default judgment and at the same time refusing to quash service. At this intermediate stage of the litigation the plaintiffs have appealed from the vacating of the default judgment and the defendants have taken a cross-appeal from the refusal to quash service.
We have recently held that an order vacating a default judgment is not final within the meaning of section 1291 of Title 28, United States Code, and, therefore, cannot support an immediate appeal. Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 1962, 307 F.2d 73. Similarly, a refusal to quash service is not an appealable final order.
The appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.