Boerio v. Boerio

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Boerio v. Boerio

4 A.2d 614, 134 Pa. Super. 501, 1939 Pa. Super. LEXIS 155

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1936

DocketAppeal, 272

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 4 A.2d 614 (Boerio v. Boerio) 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

Boerio v. Boerio, 4 A.2d 614, 134 Pa. Super. 501, 1939 Pa. Super. LEXIS 155 (Pa. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was an appeal by a wife from an order of the court below refusing to allow her counsel fees and alimony in a divorce action pending against her as respondent in that court. The order was an interlocutory one from which no appeal lies: Murray v. Murray, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 443. We pointed out in the case of Gould v. Gould, 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 387, the distinction, in that respect, between an appeal by one who has been ordered to pay alimony, etc. and an appeal by one who has been refused alimony.

The correct practice where the court has made an order refusing counsel fees, alimony, etc., was pointed out in Murray v. Murray, supra, p. 445, where we said: *503 “Such an order is in no sense final; it can be excepted to but cannot be reviewed until a final decree has been entered in the divorce proceedings and the appeal is properly before this court.” The refusal can then be assigned for error and will be considered along with the appeal on the merits: Fisher v. Fisher, 74 Pa. Superior Ct. 538, 545, 547, 548.

Disposition of this appeal was accordingly withheld until the appeal on the merits was argued.

Subsequently, on April 19, 1937, the appeal from the decree granting libellant a divorce from respondent, (this appellant), was non-prossed, but our attention was not drawn to it, and, as a result, this appeal was left undisposed of.

The appeal is quashed.

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

Per Curiam,

This was an appeal by a wife from an order of the court below refusing to allow her counsel fees and alimony in a divorce action pending against her as respondent in that court. The order was an interlocutory one from which no appeal lies: Murray v. Murray, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 443. We pointed out in the case of Gould v. Gould, 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 387, the distinction, in that respect, between an appeal by one who has been ordered to pay alimony, etc. and an appeal by one who has been refused alimony.

The correct practice where the court has made an order refusing counsel fees, alimony, etc., was pointed out in Murray v. Murray, supra, p. 445, where we said: *503 “Such an order is in no sense final; it can be excepted to but cannot be reviewed until a final decree has been entered in the divorce proceedings and the appeal is properly before this court.” The refusal can then be assigned for error and will be considered along with the appeal on the merits: Fisher v. Fisher, 74 Pa. Superior Ct. 538, 545, 547, 548.

Disposition of this appeal was accordingly withheld until the appeal on the merits was argued.

Subsequently, on April 19, 1937, the appeal from the decree granting libellant a divorce from respondent, (this appellant), was non-prossed, but our attention was not drawn to it, and, as a result, this appeal was left undisposed of.

The appeal is quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.2d 614, 134 Pa. Super. 501, 1939 Pa. Super. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boerio-v-boerio-pasuperct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack