Laughlin v. Berens

I think the orders are appealable and should be affirmed.

Section 17 — 101 gives an appeal from interlocutory orders “whereby the possession of property is changed or affected.” The order’s substantive effect, not its negative form, is decisive.1 Chas. McCaul Co. v. Harr, 1921, 51 App.D.C. 111, 113, 276 F. 633, 635. Possession clearly is affected when an order changes the legal right of possession. The orders now appealed had that effect.2

*27The temporary restraining order gave appellants the right of possession pending suit. The reversed order of December 8, 1939, purported to dissolve it and…