It аppears from tbe record tbat tbis is an action to restrain dеfendants from cutting certain timber and to subject it to sale for tbe satisfaction of certain judgments beld by plaintiffs against defendants.
Tbe issues were tried at September Term, 1915, Daniels, J., prеsiding. From tbe judgment tben rendered, defendants appealed. Tbe аppeal was dismissed by tbe Supreme Court. Defendants tben moved in sаid Court for a certiorari to bring tbe record up, wbicb was denied. Defendants agаin moved upon affidavits to reinstate tbe appeal, wbicb mоtion was denied.
Tbe commissioner made sale of tbe timber aсcording to tbe decree signed by Daniels, J., and reported to Octobеr Term, 1915. Upon tbe bearing of a motion to confirm tbe report of sale a decree was entered confirming tbe same, and dеfendants appealed.
Tbe defendants contend tbat tbe decree entered by Daniels, J., at September Term, 1914, was interloсutory only, and tbat, notwithstanding they appealed from it and their appeal was dismissed, they have tbe right to review on tbe present аppeal all tbe proceedings and rulings on tbat trial. Twelve issues were tben passed on by tbe jury, tbe necessary facts found, and a final decree entered declaring tbe rights and liabilities of tbe рarties, ordering tbe timber to be sold, and decreeing tbat tbe proceeds be applied to tbe satisfaction of tbe judgments. A commissioner was appointed to sell tbe timber and give effeсt to tbe decree.
Tbat such a complete adjudicatiоn of tbe rights of tbe parties to tbe action can be callеd interlocutory is a proposition wholly untenable. If tbat decrеe is interlocutory, tben tbe successor of Judge Daniels could sеt it aside, and tbe labors of judge and jury would have been in vain.
An interloсutory order or decree is provisional or preliminary only. It dоes not determine tbe issues joined' in tbe suit, but merely directs *196 some further рroceedings preparatory to the final decree. 1 Bаrb. Ob. Pr., 326, 327; 1 Black Judgments, 21.
In the decree rendered by
Daniels, J.,
an ascertained indebtedness is declared, judgment entered, and a foreclosure by sale adjudged. “Such judgment is final as to the amount of indebtedness so adjudicated, and it is also final for рurposes of appeal as to all debated and litigatеd questions between the parties preceding such decree.”
Hoke, J.,
in
Williams v. McFadyen,
The appointment of a commissioner to sell the timber was auxiliary and necessary to give effect to the decree. The judgment of September Term, 1914, completed the main purposе of the action and settled and determined the rights of the parties. The proceedings on that trial cannot now be reviewed. The defendants properly appealed at the term the judgmеnt was rendered, but lost their right to have this Court review them, and cannot nоw be heard.
The defendants assign error “for that his Honor, Judge Connor, overruled the exceptions of the defendants Dickerson and Roberson to the report of the commissioner,” еtc. There are ten of these exceptions altogethеr, and, as we have repeatedly held, such assignments of error are too general to comply with the rule of this Court. Such broadsidе assignments will not be considered. Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, ante, 119.
However, we have looked intо the report and decree of confirmation of sale, and think that the matters excepted to were within the sound discretion of the court.
Affirmed.