Summary
In White v. Young, 402 Pa. 61, 166 A.2d 663 (1960), we held that an interlocutory order dismissing defendant's preliminary objection that an adequate remedy existed at law was not appealable. The issue here, however, is not whether an adequate remedy at law deprives equity of jurisdiction it would otherwise possess, but whether equity initially has any jurisdiction because of the Act of 1806.
Summary of this case from Phila. Life Ins. Co. v. CommonwealthOpinion
September 26, 1960.
December 15, 1960.
Appeals — Appealable order — Court of equity — Objection to equitable jurisdiction — Dismissal — Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23.
An order dismissing a defendant's objection to equity's jurisdiction of the subject matter upon the ground that there is a complete and adequate remedy at law, does not raise a question of jurisdiction appealable under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23.
Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 185, March T., 1960, from order of Superior Court, April T., 1959, No. 62, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, No. 5494, in equity, in case of H. H. White v. Charles E. Young. Order of Superior Court vacated and appeal from court of common pleas dismissed.
Same case in Superior Court: 191 Pa. Super. 338.
Equity.
Order entered dismissing defendant's preliminary objections, opinion by CUMMINS, J. Defendant appealed to Superior Court which affirmed order, opinion by GUNTHER, J. Appeal to Supreme Court allowed.
Francis A. Barry, with him Edward S. Martin, David M. Harrison, and Harrison Louik, for appellant.
Adolph L. Zeman, with him Robert L. Zeman, and Zeman Zeman, for appellee.
The order of the court of common pleas, dismissing the defendant's objection to equity's jurisdiction of the subject matter on the ground that there is a complete and adequate remedy at law, did not raise a question of jurisdiction appealable under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 672 et seq. See Korona v. Bensalem Township, 385 Pa. 283, 284, 122 A.2d 688. The appeal should therefore have been dismissed.
The order of the Superior Court is vacated and the appeal from the court of common pleas dismissed at appellant's costs.