Bianchi v. Raynor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Bianchi v. Raynor

82 Pa. Super. 121, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 249

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1923

DocketAppeal, 151

StatusPublished

This text of 82 Pa. Super. 121 (Bianchi v. Raynor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bianchi v. Raynor, 82 Pa. Super. 121, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 249 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff in an action of ejectment moved the court for judgment on the pleadings in his favor in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 12,1919, P. L. 478, amending the Act of May 8,1901, P. L. 142, as amended by the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 887. The court refused the motion. Plaintiff appeals.

The order of the court of common pleas was not final but interlocutory in character, and no appeal lies from it unless allowed by statute; Smith v. Scholl, 262 Pa. 124,127.

The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, which authorizes an appeal by the plaintiff from the order of the court refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in actions wherein “by act of assembly or rule of *123 court,” the plaintiff is entitled to ask for such judgment, does not apply. The pleadings in the action of ejectment consist of a declaration, with an abstract of the plaintiff’s title, on the one hand, and a plea of “not guilty” and an answer in the nature of a special plea, with an abstract of the title under which defendant claims, on the other. The answer thus required is not an affidavit of defense within the provisions of the Act of 1874, supra, and does not become one because it may be mistakenly so endorsed. We are referred to no other statute as authority for the appeal, and in default thereof it must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff in an action of ejectment moved the court for judgment on the pleadings in his favor in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 12,1919, P. L. 478, amending the Act of May 8,1901, P. L. 142, as amended by the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 887. The court refused the motion. Plaintiff appeals.

The order of the court of common pleas was not final but interlocutory in character, and no appeal lies from it unless allowed by statute; Smith v. Scholl, 262 Pa. 124,127.

The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, which authorizes an appeal by the plaintiff from the order of the court refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in actions wherein “by act of assembly or rule of *123 court,” the plaintiff is entitled to ask for such judgment, does not apply. The pleadings in the action of ejectment consist of a declaration, with an abstract of the plaintiff’s title, on the one hand, and a plea of “not guilty” and an answer in the nature of a special plea, with an abstract of the title under which defendant claims, on the other. The answer thus required is not an affidavit of defense within the provisions of the Act of 1874, supra, and does not become one because it may be mistakenly so endorsed. We are referred to no other statute as authority for the appeal, and in default thereof it must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Pa. Super. 121, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bianchi-v-raynor-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack