Steth v. Henderson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Steth v. Henderson

188 A.2d 823, 200 Pa. Super. 268, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 625

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 19, 1963

DocketAppeal, No. 377

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 A.2d 823 (Steth v. Henderson) 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

Steth v. Henderson, 188 A.2d 823, 200 Pa. Super. 268, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 625 (Pa. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Flood, J.,

In this case the defendant allowed more than twenty days to go by without taking an appeal to the court below from an award entered in favor of the plaintiff by a board or panel of attorneys acting as arbitrators in accordance with procedures for compulsory arbitration adopted pursuant to §8.1 of the Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 715, as amended, 5 PS §30. Thereafter, on petition of the defendant’s counsel averring merely that he was “in constant engagement” on the last day for taking an appeal the court below made absolute a rule by the defendant to show cause why he should not be granted the right to take an appeal nunc pro tunc. The order making the defendant’s rule absolute was entered one day before we filed our opinion in Klugman v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc., 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 268, 182 A. 2d 223 (1962), in which we held that an appeal nunc pro tunc may not be allowed in a compulsory arbitration proceeding in the absence of fraud or its equivalent.

However, the order appealed from does not put the plaintiff out of court or constitute a conclusive adjudication of the proceeding, and the statute does not authorize an appeal from an interlocutory order. Therefore, the order of the court below is not appealable at this stage of the proceeding and the appeal must be quashed. Damon & Foster v. Berger, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 165, 155 A. 2d 388 (1959).

Appeal quashed.

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

Opinion by

Flood, J.,

In this case the defendant allowed more than twenty days to go by without taking an appeal to the court below from an award entered in favor of the plaintiff by a board or panel of attorneys acting as arbitrators in accordance with procedures for compulsory arbitration adopted pursuant to §8.1 of the Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 715, as amended, 5 PS §30. Thereafter, on petition of the defendant’s counsel averring merely that he was “in constant engagement” on the last day for taking an appeal the court below made absolute a rule by the defendant to show cause why he should not be granted the right to take an appeal nunc pro tunc. The order making the defendant’s rule absolute was entered one day before we filed our opinion in Klugman v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc., 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 268, 182 A. 2d 223 (1962), in which we held that an appeal nunc pro tunc may not be allowed in a compulsory arbitration proceeding in the absence of fraud or its equivalent.

However, the order appealed from does not put the plaintiff out of court or constitute a conclusive adjudication of the proceeding, and the statute does not authorize an appeal from an interlocutory order. Therefore, the order of the court below is not appealable at this stage of the proceeding and the appeal must be quashed. Damon & Foster v. Berger, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 165, 155 A. 2d 388 (1959).

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.2d 823, 200 Pa. Super. 268, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steth-v-henderson-pasuperct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack