
    FARMERS’ IRR. DIST. v. NEW YORK TRUST CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    April 14, 1922.)
    No. 5768.
    Appeal and error i&wkey;>80(6) — Decree allowing district bondholders interest, but requiring district to perform further acts, held not final.
    'ii a suit by the bondholders of an irrigation district to recover interest. a decree allowing plaintiffs the interest sued for and reserving decision as io the validity of the contract whereby the plaintiffs agreed to accept a lesser rate of interest and to cancel a portion of their bonds, on condition the United States took over the irrigation system until the defendant could procure the assent of the Secretary of the Interior to the terms of payment of the bonds, as required by the proposal of the bondholders, was not a final decree, so that an appeal therefrom must be dis missed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska; Joseph W. Woodrough, Judge.
    Action begun at law by the New York Trust Company and another against the Farmers’ Irrigation District, but transferred to the equity docket when defendant filed an equitable answer. From a decree requiring the defendant to pay the interest on its bonds sued for, but reserving determination of the validity of the contract between plaintiffs and defendant for reduction of the principal and interest of the bonds until defendant should' have an opportunity to obtain the ap^ proval of thé Secretary of the Interior to the new terms of payment for the bonds, defendant appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Halleck F. Rose, of Omaha, Neb. (Charles P. Craft, of Aurora, Neb., R. R. Raymond, of Scotts Bluff, Neb., and John F. Stout, Arthur R. Wells, and Paul R. Martin, all of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for appellant.
    Jesse R. Root and Fred A. Wright, both of Omaha, Neb. (John J.. Sullivan and-Byron Clark, both of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for appellees.
    Before CARRÁND and STONE, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
   CARRAND, Circuit Judge.

The judgment from which this appeal was taken was not a final judgment. It did not become final until the trial court finally passed upon the equitable defense of appellant. The same questions which are raised on this appeal have been considered in No. 5916, being the cross-appeal of appellant in No. 5915, 280 Fed. 785.

This appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs.  