
    HEWITT v. CHARLES R. McCORMICK LUMBER CO. OF DELAWARE et al. KEEVENY v. SAME.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    December 5, 1927.
    Nos. 59, 60.
    Courts <S=^405(12) — Writ of error canstot lie maintained to review order abating action as against one of two defendant corporations (28 USCA § 225).
    Order abating action as against corporation, which was one of two defendants, because it was dissolved and had no legal existence when actions were commenced, held not final disposition of case as between all parties, so that writ of error cannot be maintained, under 28 TJSOA § 225, to review it.
    In Error to tho District Court of tho United States for the Southern District of New York.
    Actions by Eugene D. Keeveny and by William R. Hewitt against the Charles R. MeCormiek Lumber Company of Delaware and another for breach of contract. Orders were entered abating the actions against the defendant Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company, and plaintiffs bring error.
    Writs of error dismissed.
    John M. Gardner, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
    Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox & Keating and Wherry & Mygatt, all of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, Carlos J. Warner, and Frederic E. Mygatt, all of New York City, of counsel), for Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co. of Delaware.
    Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

These actions are for breach of contract against Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company of Delaware and Charles R. McCormick & Co., a California corporation. The affidavits interposed a defense that the actions abated as against the California corporation, because it was dissolved and had no legal existence at the time the actions were commenced. On motions duly made, this defense was sustained. Orders were entered, and thereupon these writs were sued out.

Motions are made to dismiss the writs of error because of lack of jurisdiction to review them. Section 128 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 225) grants jurisdiction to this court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions of the district court. The orders entered below are not final dispositions of the cases as between all parties, and these writs of error cannot be maintained. Hohorst v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443; Bank of Rondout v. Smith, 156 U. S. 330, 15 S. Ct. 358, 39 L. Ed. 441; Arnold v. Guimarin, 263 U. S. 427, 44 S. Ct. 144, 68 L. Ed. 371; Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Arnson et al. (C. C. A.) 239 F. 891; Menge v. Warriner (C. C. A.) 120 F. 816.

The writs of error are dismissed.  