Summary
quashing appeal from interlocutory order issuing writ of replevin
Summary of this case from Jerry Davis, Inc. v. Nufab Corp.Opinion
March 25, 1964.
July 1, 1964.
Appeals — Appealable order — Interlocutory order — Replevin.
In an action of replevin with bond a court order requiring the defendant to release the goods to the sheriff is interlocutory and not appealable.
Argued March 25, 1964. Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 94, March T., 1964, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Sept. T., 1963, No. 562, in case of Northern Financial Corporation v. Ray H. Watkins and Irma G. Watkins, his wife. Appeal quashed.
Replevin with bond.
Order entered directing sheriff to seize certain goods of defendants, order by ROSSITER, J. Defendants appealed.
George W. Schroeck, for appellants.
Robert J. Kelleher, for appellee.
The appellee filed an action of replevin with bond against the appellants in the office of the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. Shortly thereafter, the appellants were served with the writ of replevin. The appellants, however, refused to surrender the goods to the sheriff. That same day, the court below issued an order requiring the appellant to release the goods to the sheriff until title was determined. The appellant then filed preliminary objections to the writ of replevin, raising a question of jurisdiction. The issue raised by the preliminary objections remains undetermined. The court below then issued, on appellee's petition, a rule to show cause why the appellants should not be cited for contempt. The appellants then answered this petition and, on November 23, 1963, the court below issued a second order requiring the appellants to deliver the goods to the sheriff; this appeal followed.
The order appealed from was interlocutory and not appealable. Bergman v. Straus, 264 Pa. 439, 107 A. 810 (1919). The appeal is merely an attempt to circumvent the proper procedures in an action of replevin with bond. There has been no final adjudication on either the question of jurisdiction or the merits of the replevin action. Appellee's motion to quash will be granted.
Appeal quashed.