
    Trevilian v. Louisa Railroad Company.
    October Term, 1846,
    Richmond.
    (Absent Brooke,, J.)
    Appeals — interlocutory Order — Roadways.—In controversies concerning roads, no appeal or superse-deas lies to an interlocutory order of the County Court.
    In 1836, the Eouisa Railroad Company moved the County Court of Hanover to appoint commissioners to assess the damages which would be sustained by Eucy Trevil-ian, by the passage of their road through her land. The commissioners were appointed, and they made a report, which, on the motion of Mrs. Trevilian, was quashed by the Court for uncertainty therein; and .other commissioners were appointed. The company excepted to the opinion of the Court quashing the report, and applied to the Circuit Superior Court of Hanover *for a supersedeas to the judgment of the County Court, which was allowed.
    When the cause came on in the Circuit Superior Court, the judgment of the County Court was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the County Court, with directions to enter a judgment according to the report. Erom this judgment of the Circuit Superior Court Mrs. Trevilian applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.
    Daniel, for the appellant.
    Lyons, for the appellee.
    
      
       Appeals — Interlocutory Order — Roadways. — The principal case is cited in Wheeling Bridge & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Wheeling Steel & Iron Co., 41 W. Va. 752, 24 S. E. Rep. 652; Pact v. C. & O. R. Co., 5 W. Va. 121; Jeter v. Board, 27 Gratt. 918, 919; Tucker v. Sandridge, 82 Va. 534; Ludlow v. City of Norfolk, 87 Va. 321, 12 S. E. Rep. 612; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 87 Va. 351, 12 S. E. Rep. 613. See footnote to Jeter v. Board, 27 Gratt. 910, and monographic note on “Appeals.”
      Final Judgment — Condemnation Proceedings — Appeal. — There must be a decree of finality about every j udgment taken up to be reviewed by appellate courts. A j udgment appointing commissioners to fix a just compensation for land proposed to be taken in condemnation proceedings, is not final and appealable. Ludlow v. City of Norfolk, 87 Va. 319, 12 S. E. Rep. 612; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Norfolk & Western R. R. Co., 87 Va. 349, 12 S. E. Rep. 613. See monographic note on “Appeals.”
      Same — Judgment Sustaining Demurrer. — The sustaining or overruling of a demurrer to a declaration is not final. To make a judgment sustaining a demurrer final, there must be a judgment of dismissal. Gillespie v. Coleman, ,98 Va. 276, 36 S. E. Rep. 377, citing Hancock v. R. & P. R. R. Co., 3 Gratt. 328; Trevilian v. Louisa B. B. Co., 3 Gratt. 326; Jeter v. Board, 27 Gratt. 910; Tucker v. Sandridge, 82 Va. 53; 4 Min. Inst. 1064-66 (3d Ed.); 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Pl. & Pr. 114.
    
   BALDWIN, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It seems to the Court that the Circuit Superior Court had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the County Court; the same not being final, but interlocutory only. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Superior Court be reversed and annulled, with costs. And this Court proceeding to give such judgment as the said Circuit Superior Court ought to have rendered it is .further considered by the Court that the supersedeas from the said Circuit Superior Court to the said order of the County Court be dismissed, as having been improvidently awarded, with costs to the defendant in error there: and it is ordered that the cause be remanded to the said Circuit Superior Court, and from thence to the County Court for further proceedings.  