Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Pa. Super. 429

Kimmel v. Johnson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 18, 1901

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1901-11-18

Appeal, No. 132, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, Robert Johnson, from C. P. Blair Co., Nos. 128, 129, 130, 131 and 131, Oct. T., 1898, in cases of Philip Kimmel et al. v. Robert Johnson et al. Motion to quash appeal. The following reasons, among others, were filed for quashing the appeal. 7. This appeal is taken by Robert Johnson, the defendant, in five separate and distinct issues, wherein five separate and distinct parties are plaintiffs.

Relies on Reed's Appeal · Cake v. Cake

Appeal quashed · Decided 1901-11-18

Pee Curiam,

¶1The appellant was defendant in five distinct issues awarded by the court of common pleas to determine certain questions of fact arising in the distribution of a fund realized upon a sheriff’s sale of real estate. In each of these issues there was a different plaintiff. All the issues were tried before the same *431jury and a verdict was rendered in the plaintiff’s favor. Whether a final decree of distribution was made does not appear. See Reed’s Appeal, 71 Pa. 378, and Cake v. Cake, 106 Pa. 472. But even if an appeal from a judgment in a feigned issue will lie before final decree of distribution, the present motion to quash must prevail, because at the time the appeal was taken judgment had not been entered on the verdict in any of the issues, and in four of them had not been taken up to the present time. As to the seventh reason assigned in support of the motion to quash, we refer to the recent decision of this court in Commonwealth v. Schollenberger, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 218.

¶2Appeal quashed.

/18/pasuper/429 · .json · Public domain