Opinion
December 12, 1963.
March 17, 1964.
Appeals — Final or interlocutory order — Order striking off an appeal from arbitrators — Jurisdiction of appellate court — Question raised by court of its own motion — Definitive order, decree, or judgment — Party precluded from further action — Consent of all parties — Rules of lower court — Interpretation — Appellate review.
1. An appeal does not lie from an order refusing to strike off an appeal from arbitrators, as such an order is merely interlocutory.
2. The question of the appealability of an order goes to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, and may be raised by the court itself.
3. Unless a special right to appeal is expressly given by statute, an appeal will lie only from a definitive order, decree, or judgment which finally determines the action.
4. An order, decree, or judgment is not final unless it precludes a party from further action in the court wherein it is entered.
5. Even with the consent of all interested parties, appellate jurisdiction of an interlocutory order or decree may not be assumed.
6. The interpretation of a rule of court is a matter for the determination of the court in which the rule has been promulgated, and the appellate court will not interfere with the court's construction of its own rules, unless the interpretation applied is so unreasonably exercised as to amount to an abuse of discretion.
7. In this case, in which it appeared that defendants, appealing from the action of a board of arbitrators, complied with all of the requirements of a rule of the court below, except that they failed to file a praecipe ordering the case for trial, it was Held that the court below did not abuse its discretion in discharging plaintiff's rule to strike off the appeal for noncompliance with the rule of court and directing the trial commissioner to list the case specially.
Before RHODES, P.J., WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (ERVIN, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 380, Oct. T., 1963, from order of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1960, No. 3339-D, in case of Ossie P. Caples v. Maurice Klugman et ux. Appeal quashed.
Proceeding upon petition of plaintiff and rule to show cause why appeal by defendant from award by arbitrators should not be stricken off.
Order entered discharging rule to strike off and directing appeal to be listed for trial, opinion by BURCH, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Sidney E. Herold, with him Eugene D. Salus, for appellant.
Harry F. Tractman, for appellees.
Argued December 12, 1963.
Ossie P. Caples filed a complaint in assumpsit against Maurice Klugman and Anne E. Klugman, his wife, seeking to recover payments under a lease sales agreement. The case was submitted to arbitrators who filed a report and award in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants in the sum of $1,053.40. The defendants then appealed to the County Court. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be stricken for noncompliance with County Court Rule 6. The court below discharged the rule and this appeal to the Superior Court followed.
This appeal must be quashed. An appeal does not lie from an order refusing to strike off an appeal from arbitrators, as such an order is merely interlocutory: Schultz v. Bear Creek Refining Co., 174 Pa. 287, 34 A. 560; Drum v. Uplinger, 9 Pa. Super. 404. Cf. Sheafer v. Melcher, 48 Pa. Super. 398; Yost v. Davison, 5 Pa. Super. 469. The question of the appealability of an order goes to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, and may be raised by the court itself: Reading Co. v. Willow Development Co., 407 Pa. 469, 181 A.2d 288. Unless a special right to appeal is expressly given by statute, an appeal will lie only from a definitive order, decree or judgment which finally determines the action: Marshall Estate, 403 Pa. 348, 168 A.2d 745; Cavallo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 186 Pa. Super. 534, 142 A.2d 393. Such an order, decree or judgment is not final unless it precludes a party from further action in the court wherein it is entered: 1621, Inc. v. Wilson, 402 Pa. 94, 166 A.2d 271; MidCity Press, Inc. v. Cohen, 199 Pa. Super. 133, 184 A.2d 511. Even with the consent of all interested parties, appellate jurisdiction of an interlocutory order or decree may not be assumed: Sullivan v. Philadelphia, 378 Pa. 648, 107 A.2d 854; McGee v. Singley, 382 Pa. 18, 114 A.2d 141. Our latest discussion of the subject appears in the opinion of Judge MONTGOMERY in Kennedy v. Banbury Equipment Corp., 202 Pa. Super. 242, 195 A.2d 832, in which case, on our own motion, we quashed an appeal from an interlocutory order.
Although the foregoing determines the appeal, we are impelled to add that appellant fares no better on the merits. County Court Rule 6 provides, inter alia, that a party appealing from the action of a Board of Arbitrators must, within twenty days, file (1) notice of the appeal, (2) an affidavit that the appeal is not taken for delay, (3) an appeal bond, and (4) a praecipe ordering the case for trial. Defendants in the case at bar complied with all of these requirements except the fourth. They also paid the fees of the arbitrators. The court below, in discharging the rule, directed the trial commissioner to list the case specially, stating "that this eliminates any question of prejudice which the plaintiff might suffer because of the delay".
A trial court has wide power to construe its own rules to determine whether they are to be rigidly enforced or even to suspend them: McFadden v. Pennzoil Co., 326 Pa. 277, 191 A. 584. The interpretation of a rule of court is a matter for the determination of the court in which the rule has been promulgated: Commonwealth v. Morgan, 280 Pa. 67, 124 A. 339. We will not interfere with a court's construction of its own rules, unless the interpretation applied is so unreasonably exercised as to amount to an abuse of discretion: Babis v. New York Extract Co., 120 Pa. Super. 73, 181 A. 846; Germ v. Price, 175 Pa. Super. 286, 104 A.2d 166; Saturen v. Gibraltar Mutual Ins. Co., 192 Pa. Super. 117, 159 A.2d 577. No such abuse of discretion is apparent in the instant case.
The appeal is quashed.