Fowler & Williams, Inc. v. International Lithographing

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Fowler & Williams, Inc. v. International Lithographing

434 A.2d 792, 290 Pa. Super. 359, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3350

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 4, 1981

DocketNo. 1168

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 434 A.2d 792 (Fowler & Williams, Inc. v. International Lithographing) 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

Fowler & Williams, Inc. v. International Lithographing, 434 A.2d 792, 290 Pa. Super. 359, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3350 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal must be quashed. The action was instituted by appellee as a holder in due course of a note made by appellant in favor of Scranton Lithographing, Inc., for appellant’s failure to honor its note when presented for payment. Appellant counterclaimed, alleging fraud, and joined Scranton Lithographing as an additional defendant. The case was tried before the lower court without a jury. The court found against appellant on all three claims. Appellant filed exceptions, which the lower court dismissed. Appellant has appealed from the order dismissing its exceptions. An order dismissing exceptions following a trial without a jury is like an order refusing a new trial. It is interlocutory and unappealable. Penstan Supply, Inc. v. Hay, 283 Pa.Super. 558, 424 A.2d 950 (1981).

Quashed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal must be quashed. The action was instituted by appellee as a holder in due course of a note made by appellant in favor of Scranton Lithographing, Inc., for appellant’s failure to honor its note when presented for payment. Appellant counterclaimed, alleging fraud, and joined Scranton Lithographing as an additional defendant. The case was tried before the lower court without a jury. The court found against appellant on all three claims. Appellant filed exceptions, which the lower court dismissed. Appellant has appealed from the order dismissing its exceptions. An order dismissing exceptions following a trial without a jury is like an order refusing a new trial. It is interlocutory and unappealable. Penstan Supply, Inc. v. Hay, 283 Pa.Super. 558, 424 A.2d 950 (1981).

Quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 A.2d 792, 290 Pa. Super. 359, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-williams-inc-v-international-lithographing-pasuperct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack