
    O’BRIEN v. LASHAR et al. (two cases).
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 7, 1920.)
    No. 235.
    Appeal and error <&wkey;82(3) — Refusal to malí© decree pro confesso absoluta and opening it are not appealable orders.
    Orders for decree pro confesso, which did not make the decree absolute, and for opening the decree to permit defendants to make motions to dismiss or to flic answer, are interlocutory orders, which are not appealable.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
    Two suits by James J. O’Brien against Walter B. Uashar and others. From orders refusing to make the decree pro confesso absolute, and opening it to permit defendants to plead, plaintiff appeals. On motion to dismiss.
    Appeals dismissed.
    James J. O’Brien, in pro. per.
    W. H. O’Hara and A. M. Marsh, both of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellees.
    Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is not taken under section 129 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1121), but on the ground that the court below erred in not making the decree pro confess'© absolute, and also in opening it to permit the defendants to make motions to dismiss or to file answers. These orders are interlocutory, and as such not ap-pealable. If erroneous, they can be corrected only on appeal from a final decree in the cause.

Motion granted.  