Drum v. Uplinger
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1897, No. 1106, discharging rule to strike off an appeal from award of arbitrators.' Assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1897, No. 1106, discharging rule to strike off an appeal from award of arbitrators.' Assumpsit. Before Woodward, P. J. This case originally arose on appeal by defendant from the judgment of a justice for $284.20. The plaintiffs proceeded under the law to arbitration, and the case was regularly tried before arbitrators chosen by the parties for the trial of the case and same day an award was given in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in the sum of $284.20 and costs. On May 25, 1898, the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The refusal to strike off an appeal from an award of arbitrators is clearly an interlocutory order and from such orders there is no right of appeal before final judgment, unless it is expressly given by statute. This general rule has been enforced in a multitude of reported cases, and its application to orders like the present has been decided several times: Kendrick v. Overstreet, 3 S. & R. 357; Straub v. Smith, 2 S. & R. 382; Wooden Ware Co. v. Howe, 164 Pa. 85; Schultz v. Bear Creek Co., 174 Pa. 287; Yost v. Davison, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 469; Anderson v. McMichael, 6 Pa. Superior…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Yost v. DavisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Anderson v. McMichaelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Co. v. HoweSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Schultz v. Bear Creek Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by4 opinions
- Caples v. KlugmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Commonwealth v. LuckeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Rieseck v. LanahanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Sheafer v. MelcherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911