Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute

223 A.2d 850, 423 Pa. 490, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 496
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 15, 1966·No. Appeal, No. 382·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appeal quashed. Appellant attempts to appeal from the dismissal of preliminary objections, filed in her behalf and in behalf of the corporate defendant. The court below properly refused to entertain the corporate preliminary objections since there is no indication the appellant had any authority to file objections in its behalf. As to her own preliminary objections, no appeal is allowable from their dismissal. As stated by this court in Wandzilak v. Huss, 419 Pa. 541; “We [492] stated in Dozor Agency v. Rosenberg, 403 Pa. 237: ‘However, generally speaking, an Order overruling preliminary objections is interlocutory and not appealable : Grosso v. Englert, 381 Pa. 351, 113 A. 2d 250. That general rule is, however, subject to the exception that if a question of jurisdiction is involved that question is appealable under the Act of March 5, 1925; Gardner v. Allegheny County, 382 Pa. 88, 114 A. 2d 491; Powell v. Shepard, 381 Pa. 405, 113 A. 2d 261.’ ”

In this case, the preliminary objections as to the appellant did not concern the question of jurisdiction, and as the court below made clear: “There is no question of jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction of the person was obtained by personal service. As to her, the case is now at issue on the basis of the complaint, the answer and new matter, and the reply to new matter.”

This order was therefore not final within this court’s definition of the term as set forth in Stadler v. Mt. Oliver Borough, 373 Pa. 316: “By a veritable multitude of decisions it has been established that, unless a special right to appeal is expressly given by statute, an appeal will lie only from a definitive order, decree, or judgment which finally determines the action. The court cannot assume such appellate jurisdiction even by consent of the parties: (citing cases). Nor is an order, judgment or decree final unless it terminates the litigation between the parties to the suit by precluding a party from further action in that court: (citing cases).”

Appeal quashed.

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

Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute, 223 A.2d 850, 423 Pa. 490, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 496 (Pa. 1966).

223 A.2d 850 (Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fetter v. Schwartz
602 A.2d 1354 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Martino v. Transport Workers Union Local 234
447 A.2d 292 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Balter v. Balter
425 A.2d 1138 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Berlin v. Drexel University
10 Pa. D. & C.3d 319 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1979)
Williams v. Williams
385 A.2d 422 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
MacKanick v. Rubin
368 A.2d 815 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
In re November 1975 Special Investigating Grand Jury
356 A.2d 759 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
2401 Pennsylvania Avenue Corp. v. Southland Corp.
344 A.2d 582 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
McConnell v. Schmidt
339 A.2d 578 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
West Penn Power Company v. Goddard
333 A.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Brown Estate
289 A.2d 77 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Newkirk v. Philadelphia School District
261 A.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
Emerson v. Billingsley
247 A.2d 472 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
Commonwealth ex rel. Ransom Township v. Mascheska
239 A.2d 386 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
COM. Ex Rel. RANSOM TWP. v. Mascheska
239 A.2d 386 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
Phila. v. WM. PENN BUS. INS.
423 Pa. 490 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)