Categories: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinions

VOLKER v. MALLON, 420 Pa. 41 (1966)

216 A.2d 65

Volker v. Mallon, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Submitted November 16, 1965.
January 17, 1966.

Appeals — Appealable order — Interlocutory order — Dismissing preliminary objections to complaint — Quashing appeal.

An order dismissing preliminary objections to an amended complaint in an action in equity is an interlocutory non-appealable order; and an appeal therefrom must be quashed.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 294, Jan. T., 1965, from order of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1964, No. 20670-E, in case of Robert J. Volker et ux. v. Joseph M. Mallon et al. Appeal quashed.

Equity.

Preliminary objections of defendant, Frank Schneider, dismissed, opinion by BURCH, J. Defendant, Frank Schneider, appealed.

Paul Leo McSorley, and McSorley, Purcell McSorley, for appellant.

Marvin H. Levin, for appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, January 17, 1966:

Plaintiff-appellees instituted an action in equity by the issuance of a complaint which the sheriff was unable to serve upon the defendant-appellants. Thereafter, to the same number and term, the plaintiff-appellees

Page 42

filed an amended complaint which the sheriff was able to serve on the defendant-appellants.[1]

The defendant-appellants then filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint on the ground that such complaint violated Pa. R. C. P. 1033, in that consent to file suc amended pleading had not been with the written consent of defendant-appellants or by leave of court.[2] The court below dismissed the preliminary objections and from the dismissal thereof this appeal was taken.

An examination of the record clearly shows that the real thrust of the preliminary objections was to the amendment of the complaint and that the court below permitted the amendment.

An appeal from the dismissal of preliminary objections under such circumstances does not lie unless a special right to appeal is expressly given by statute, an appeal will lie only from a definitive order, decree or judgment which finally determines the action. See: Stadler v. Mt. Oliver Borough, 373 Pa. 316, 317, 318, 95 A.2d 776, 777.

The instant order merely has the effect of permitting the amendment to the complaint and in no manner finally determines the action. The order being an interlocutory order not made appealable by statute, an appeal therefrom will not lie.

Appeal quashed.[3]

[1] No question of the statute of limitations or laches is involved.

[2] In pertinent part, Rule 1033 provides: “A party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time . . . amend his pleading.”

[3] This ruling, of course, in no manner passes upon the propriety of the order of the court below nor do we pass upon the question of the failure to comply with Rule 1033 in the amendment of this complaint.

Page 43

jdjungle