Drum v. Uplinger

9 Pa. Super. 404, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 17, 1899
DocketAppeal, No. 34
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 Pa. Super. 404 (Drum v. Uplinger) 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
Drum v. Uplinger, 9 Pa. Super. 404, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43 (Pa. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The refusal to strike off an appeal from an award of arbitrators is clearly an interlocutory order and from such orders there is no right of appeal before final judgment, unless it is expressly given by statute. This general rule has been enforced in a multitude of reported cases, and its application to orders like the present has been decided several times: Kendrick v. Overstreet, 3 S. & R. 357; Straub v. Smith, 2 S. & R. 382; Wooden Ware Co. v. Howe, 164 Pa. 85; Schultz v. Bear Creek Co., 174 Pa. 287; Yost v. Davison, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 469; Anderson v. McMichael, 6 Pa. Superior Ct. 114.

The appeal is quashed at the costs of the appellants and the record remitted with a procedendo.

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

Related

Caples v. Klugman
198 A.2d 342 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
Sheafer v. Melcher
48 Pa. Super. 398 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Commonwealth v. Luckey
31 Pa. Super. 441 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Rieseck v. Lanahan
10 Pa. Super. 281 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Pa. Super. 404, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drum-v-uplinger-pasuperct-1899.