Stuchul v. Stuchul

82 A. 78, 233 Pa. 229, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 487
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 23, 1911·No. Appeal, No. 105·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A decree overruling a demurrer to a bill in equity and directing the defendant to answer over is interloctory and from it no appeal lies: Arnold v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co., 212 Pa. 303. Nothing in the Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. 440, changes this. When the question of jurisdiction is raised in limine and decided adversely to the plaintiff he is driven out of the equity court, and the decree is final as to him, for it denies him equitable relief. Before the passage of the act of 1907 he had a right to appeal from such a decree, and that act in express terms continues the right; but as to a defendant whose demurrer to a bill is overruled, the decree overruling it remains interlocutory and the question of its correctness can be raised here only upon appeal from a final decree. _The motion to quash must prevail.

Appeal quashed at appellant's costs and record remitted with a procedendo.

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

Stuchul v. Stuchul, 82 A. 78, 233 Pa. 229, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 487 (Pa. 1911).

82 A. 78 (Stuchul v. Stuchul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. Keystone Coal & Coke Co.
118 A. 565 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Holden v. Llewellyn
105 A. 639 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)