
    Amos Piper versus Alvarius Willard and Trustees.
    
      Sept. 23d
    
    Exceptions will not lie to an order of the Court of Common Pleas requiring one summoned as a trustee, to answer a particular interrogatory, such order being merely interlocutory.
    Ln me Uourt of Common Pleas an interrogatory was put the persons summoned as trustees, which they declined answering, and thereupon the Court ordered that they should answer the same. To this order they filed exceptions.
    
      D. Wells and. Grennell
    
    now contended that the exceptions would not lie, the order being merely interlocutory; and that supposed trustees should not have excepted until there was a final judgment charging them as trustees. St. 1820, c. 79, § 5; Haynes v. Morgan, 3 Mass. R. 208.
    
      Sept. 26th
    
   The Court were of this opinion, observing that the cause must go on to a final judgment in the court below, the party stating his objections as it proceeds, and when there has been a final judgment, he may except to the interlocutory orders. Purple v. Clark, 5 Pick. 206.

Jlshmun, for the trustees, referred to St. 1804, c. 105, § 5.-

Exceptions dismissed. 
      
       See Ely v. Ball, 8 Pick. 352; Piper v. Willard, 10 Pick. 34.
     