Rieseck v. Lanahan

Decided May 18, 1899

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1899-05-18

Appeal, No. 52, April T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1898, No. 317, allowing appeal from alderman to be filed nunc pro tunc. Per curiam. Appeal by defendants from judgment of alderman. The following facts appear from the docket entries: Appeal by defendant from judgment of alderman Jno. Burns on April 15,1898, in favor of plaintiff for $226 and costs, $3.15, paid by defendant; Chas. Dugan bail in $50.00 for costs. And now, June 6,1898, petition presented in open court and rule granted on defendant, to show cause why appeal should not be stricken off. Returnable- June 11,1898, at 9: 30 A. m:. June 21, 1898, on argument list, rule discharged and appeal allowed to be filed nunc pro tunc as of May 2, 1898. Order allowing appeal nunc pro tunc. Plaintiffs appealed. Errors assigned were (1) in discharging rule to show cause why appeal should not be stricken off. (2) In making order allowing appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc as of May 2, 1898.

Affirmed · Decided 1899-05-18

Per Curiam,

¶1In Yost v. Davison, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, we held that an order allowing a transcript of appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to be filed nunc pro tunc is interlocutory, and from it an independent appeal does not lie. This conclusion was reached after a full consideration of the question and we see no reason for not adhering to it. See also Starr’s Estate, 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 212, Drum v. Uplinger, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 404, and Powell v. Gayley, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 405.

¶2The appeal is quashed at the costs of the appellant, and the record is remitted with a procedendo.