From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
May 8, 1981
429 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)

Opinion

Submitted November 16, 1979.

Filed May 8, 1981.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, Allegheny County, No. 3279 of 1977, Barry and Weir, JJ.

Alan H. Perer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Neil R. Rosen, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and MONTGOMERY and LIPEZ, JJ.


Appellee, Winston Carter, filed a complaint against appellant, Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc., [hereinafter Aaacon], alleging breach of appellant's contract to transport appellee's automobile from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Anglewood, California. After an arbitration hearing on June 29, 1977, an award was entered for Carter. Aaacon appealed from this judgment to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, and on May 24, 1978, a non-jury trial was held, which resulted in an order in favor of Carter. Thereafter, Aaacon filed exceptions, which were dismissed by the court en banc on December 5, 1978. It is from this December 5, 1978 order that appellant takes the present appeal. Because an order dismissing exceptions is not an appealable one, this appeal is quashed. To perfect such an order for appeal purposes, it must be reduced to judgment in compliance with both the rules of appellate and civil procedure. See Penstan Supply, Inc. v. Hay, 283 Pa. Super. 558, 424 A.2d 950 (1981); Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167, 427 A.2d 165 (1981). See also Pa.R.A.P. 301(c), (d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1039.

The appeal is quashed.


Summaries of

Carter v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
May 8, 1981
429 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
Case details for

Carter v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Winston CARTER v. AAACON AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 8, 1981

Citations

429 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
429 A.2d 658

Citing Cases

Coren v. DiDomenico

So long as the docket is tidy enough to disclose when the lower court's order was filed and what it said, we…