MacKowain v. Gulf Oil Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

MacKowain v. Gulf Oil Corp.

87 A.2d 314, 369 Pa. 581, 37 A.L.R. 2d 584, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 300

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 24, 1952

DocketAppeal, 72

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 87 A.2d 314 (MacKowain v. Gulf Oil Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacKowain v. Gulf Oil Corp., 87 A.2d 314, 369 Pa. 581, 37 A.L.R. 2d 584, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 300 (Pa. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr Justice Allen M. Stearne,

Defendant has filed a motion to quash this appeal because it is interlocutory.

The action is in trespass for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The court below-entered an order directing plaintiff to answer defendant’s written interrogatories. The court approved the interrogatories, which were filed pursuant to this order. Within the period allowed for answering the interrogatories plaintiff filed his appeal. Procedure relating to Depositions and Discovery was adopted by this Court November 20, 1950, effective June 1, 1951, and is embodied in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4001 to 4025 inclusive. Plaintiff’s chief complaint is that under rule 4011 a party cannot have, discovery of any fact not necessary to prepare the pleadings or prove a prima facie defense, and that defendant’s questions in its interrogatories violate this rule.

The order appealed from is clearly interlocutory as it makes no final disposition of the matter in controversy. Until such final order is entered plaintiff cannot be harmed. Cf. Quinn v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 219 Pa. 24, 67 A. 949.

In the above circumstances we. have consistently refrained from considering the merits of the appeal. See the many cases cited in 9 Standard Pennsylvania Prac *583 tice secs. 24, 27. We are not unmindful of the importance of the questions sought to he raised by this appeal, but “The law aims to dispose of litigation by a single appeal and preliminary orders are not appeal-able in advance of final judgment except when made so by statute: Wood v. Harlan, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 92.”: Lewis v. Beatty, 306 Pa. 242, 245, 159 A. 441. The course suggested by appellant has frequently been proposed. Justice Sadler answered such suggestion in American Trust Co. v. Kaufman, 279 Pa. 230, 123 A. 785, in these words, p. 233: “. . . it must be kept in mind, permission to appeal from intermediate decrees tends to delay disposition of the controversy, and an attempt to obviate a supposed inconvenience may result in more harm than good. The wisdom of such a change is, however, not for us to pass upon, and, until ordered by some statute, the long established principle, that review can be had only when the action has terminated below, must control.”

The appeal is quashed.

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

Opinion by

Mr Justice Allen M. Stearne,

Defendant has filed a motion to quash this appeal because it is interlocutory.

The action is in trespass for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The court below-entered an order directing plaintiff to answer defendant’s written interrogatories. The court approved the interrogatories, which were filed pursuant to this order. Within the period allowed for answering the interrogatories plaintiff filed his appeal. Procedure relating to Depositions and Discovery was adopted by this Court November 20, 1950, effective June 1, 1951, and is embodied in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4001 to 4025 inclusive. Plaintiff’s chief complaint is that under rule 4011 a party cannot have, discovery of any fact not necessary to prepare the pleadings or prove a prima facie defense, and that defendant’s questions in its interrogatories violate this rule.

The order appealed from is clearly interlocutory as it makes no final disposition of the matter in controversy. Until such final order is entered plaintiff cannot be harmed. Cf. Quinn v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 219 Pa. 24, 67 A. 949.

In the above circumstances we. have consistently refrained from considering the merits of the appeal. See the many cases cited in 9 Standard Pennsylvania Prac *583 tice secs. 24, 27. We are not unmindful of the importance of the questions sought to he raised by this appeal, but “The law aims to dispose of litigation by a single appeal and preliminary orders are not appeal-able in advance of final judgment except when made so by statute: Wood v. Harlan, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 92.”: Lewis v. Beatty, 306 Pa. 242, 245, 159 A. 441. The course suggested by appellant has frequently been proposed. Justice Sadler answered such suggestion in American Trust Co. v. Kaufman, 279 Pa. 230, 123 A. 785, in these words, p. 233: “. . . it must be kept in mind, permission to appeal from intermediate decrees tends to delay disposition of the controversy, and an attempt to obviate a supposed inconvenience may result in more harm than good. The wisdom of such a change is, however, not for us to pass upon, and, until ordered by some statute, the long established principle, that review can be had only when the action has terminated below, must control.”

The appeal is quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.2d 314, 369 Pa. 581, 37 A.L.R. 2d 584, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackowain-v-gulf-oil-corp-pa-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack