Case ID: pa-super_7/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wickham, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Appeal of George W. Irwin et al. Highland Township Road.
    
      Road law — Practice, Q. S. — Interlocutory order — Premature appeal.
    
    An order setting aside the report of road viewers, on the ground that they did not begin their work at the place mentioned in their posted notice, thus misleading parties, is an interlocutory and not a final order. The main proceedings being undetermined, an appeal will be quashed as prematurely taken.
    Argued March 18, 1898.
    Appeal, No. 59, March T., 1898, by George W. Irwin et al., from decree of Q. S. Adams Co., setting aside report of viewers laying out a public road.
    Before Rice, P. J., Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Porter, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Exceptions to report of viewers. Before Swope, P. J.
    
      May 17, 1898:
    It appears from the record that tire court below sustained exceptions to the viewers’ report and set aside same on the ground that the viewers did not begin their work at the place named in the posted notice, thus misleading parties in interest.
    George Irwin et al. appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in sustaining the exceptions and setting aside report of viewers.
    
      William Me Olean and Wm. Hersh (with them Win. Arch. Me Olean), for appellants.
    
      J. L. Butt, for appellees.-
   Opimos by

Wickham, J.,

In this case the court below set aside the report of road viewers, on the ground that the viewers did not begin their work at the place mentioned in their posted notices, thus misleading parties in interest.

Manifestly this is an interlocutory and not a final' order. The main proceedings are undetermined in the court below. The appeal, therefore, was prematurely taken. In Road in Kiskiminitas Tp., 32 Pa. 9, the viewers’ report was set aside for excessive damages. In Road from Bough Street, etc., 2 S. & R. 418, the same action was taken, with the report of re-reviewers, because of its uncertainty. In each ease the Supreme Court quashed the certiorari, for the reason that the order of the court below was merely interlocutory and did not finally determine the fate of the road. This appeal is subject to the same rule.

Appeal quashed for reason above given.