Case ID: walker_4/html/0338-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WESNER’S APPEAL.
    A decree confirming an Auditor’s report, but directing tliat part of the distribution be postponed until the Question of who is entitled to «uch part of the fund is determined at law, is not a final decree.
    Appeal from Common Pleas of Berks County, No. 8 January Term, 1881.
    Jonas Wesner loaned Moses Stein $460 and took his note, With Amos Greenawalt as surety. Afterwards Stein became ■embarrassed and confessed various judgments on the same day, which were duly entered up, and his property sold for a sum insufficient to pay the claims against it. One of the judgments was in favor of Amos Greenawalt for $1,511.10; and was made up of three amounts, one a debt due by Stein to 'Greenawalt, another part for the amount for which Greenawalt Was surety to Jonas Wesner, and the balance for the amount 'for which Greenawalt was surety for Stein to Willoughby 'Wesner. This judgment was entered to No. 10 November 'Term, 1878. An auditor was appointed, who made alterative ¡schedules of distribution; as Jonas Wesner claimed a pro rata ■distribution of this judgment No. 10 November Term, 1878. An issue had been formed to try the question of ownership of this judgment under these circumstances. The Court made the following decree:
    
      This auditor’s report is confirmed absolutely; and it is ordered that no decree be made for the payment of any distribution money to Amos Greenawalt or to Jonas AVesner and AVilloughby AVesner, until it appears to the satisfaction of this •Court that the suit at law involved in the judgment No. 10, November Term, 1878, Moses Stein to Amos Greenawalt, be finally determined.
    Jonas AVesner then appealed.
    
      H. Y. Kaufmcm, Esq., for appellant cited,
    Cornwell’s Appeal, 7 W. & S., 308; Erb’s Appeal, 2 P. & W., 299; Rice’s Appeal, 79 Pa., 206; Carman vs. Noble, 9 Pa., 366; McGowin vs. Remington, 12 Pa., 56; Kelly’s Appeal, 16 Pa., 59; Vandikes’ Appeal, 17 Pa., 271; Cooper’s Appeal, 26 Pa., 262; Souder’s Appeal, 27 Pa., 502.
    
      A. II. Schmehl. Esq., contra, argued that there was no final decree.
   The Supreme Court quashed the appeal on March 14, 1881, in the following opinion :

Pee Curiam

It is very evident that there was no final decree in this case. The Learned Judge below expressly suspended that until the final determination of the suit at law involved in the judgment No. 10, November Term, 1878.

Appeal quashed.