Stuchul v. Stuchul

82 A. 78, 233 Pa. 229, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 487
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 23, 1911
DocketAppeal, No. 105
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A. 78, 233 Pa. 229, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuchul-v-stuchul-pa-1911.