Opinion
April 9, 1962.
June 13, 1962.
Appeals — Final or interlocutory order — Order refusing defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings.
An order refusing a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings is interlocutory and not appealable.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 128, April T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, June T., 1961, No. 1, in case of Nancy Mosebach v. Louis H. Mosebach. Appeal quashed.
Assumpsit. Before WOLFE, J.
Order entered refusing defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant appealed.
Samuel R. DiFrancesco, Sr., with him DiFrancesco DiFrancesco, for appellant.
Llewellyn E. Lloyd, for appellee.
Argued April 9, 1962.
Wife-plaintiff brought an action in assumpsit against husband-defendant claiming arrearages due under a separation agreement accumulated before and after an order of support by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Cambria County. An answer was filed by defendant to the complaint setting forth new matter to which plaintiff filed a reply. Thereupon defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which motion was denied. A reargument was granted and the court below filed a written opinion and an order overruling defendant's motion. It is from this order that defendant has appealed. This order is interlocutory as there is no applicable statute authorizing an appeal, although the refusal of a plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is appealable. McGee v. Singley, 382 Pa. 18, 20, 114 A.2d 141; Epstein v. Kramer, 374 Pa. 112, 96 A.2d 912. In Redding v. Stage, 188 Pa. Super. 195, 146 A.2d 333, we quashed a similar appeal.
While there was no motion to quash filed in the instant case, nevertheless we will not assume jurisdiction of such an interlocutory order. Moreover, it appears from the record after argument that there is no merit to defendant's appeal.
The appeal is quashed.