#### Moritz Ertl et al. v. Samuel Lehmann et al. Mathias Freres, Appellee, v. Samuel Lehmann et al., on appeal of Louis Henry et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 19,168.

Receivers — substitution of. Under R. S. eh. 110, §123, limiting appeals from interlocutory orders regarding receivers to orders “appointing a receiver or giving other or further powers or property to a receiver already appointed,” the discharge of one receiver and. substitution of another is not subject to review.

*39Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavakagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Appeal dismissed.

Opinion filed March 4, 1913.

Joseph Kohh and Hektrt & RobiusoN, for certain appellants.

Fred Plotke and George E. Swartz, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

— In this case an appeal has been attempted to he perfected from an order entered discharging a receiver appointed on a hill of foreclosure, and appointing another in his place.

We have no jurisdiction. The statute with respect to appeals from interlocutory orders regarding receivers (section 123, chapter 110, R. S.) is limited to an order “appointing a receiver, or giving other or further powers or property to a receiver already appointed.” The court, having appointed a receiver, has authority to substitute another for the one originally named, and his action in so doing is not subject to review. The "appeal will therefore he dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.