Smith v. Scholl

Citations

• 262 Pa. 124
• 105 A. 41
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 604

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals, statutory — Interlocutory orders — Paper boohs — Printing record — Assignments of error — Defective assignments — Petition for possession of realty by purchaser at Sheriff’s sale — Acts of April 20, 1905, P. L. 289, and April 18, 187k, P- L. 6k.</p> <p>1. The general rule is that where a proceeding is contrary to-the common law, no appeal is permitted except as allowed by statute, and, in all such cases, the legislative provisions conferring the right of review must be strictly adhered to.</p> <p>2. In proceedings under the Act of April 20, 1905, P. L. 239, for a citation to show cause why a party in possession of real estate should not deliver up possession to the purchaser thereof at a sherill’s sale, where respondent claimed title by adverse possession for twenty-one years and prayed a jury trial, and the court discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient answer and awarded an issue and jury trial on the question of adverse possession, the issue to be prepared by counsel, etc., such order was interlocutory, and an appeal therefrom will be quashed. An appeal from an order directing an issue to be framed is never considered final.</p> <p>3. In such case, the provisions of the Act of April 18,1874, P. L. 64, allowing appeals from orders refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, have no application.</p> <p>4. In such a proceeding, the plaintiff cannot successfully contend that the lower court should have granted him judgment as though the cause had been ordered “for argument upon petition and answer,” when the record did not disclose facts upon which such judgment could be entered, or that he should have been granted judgment upon the whole record, when he did not seek that remedy in the court below.</p> <p>5. An appellant’s paper book is defective where it fails to set forth in full the rule for judgment taken in the court below and does not show that the sufficiency of an answer was attacked.</