Case Name: Ruth MARSHALL and William Marshall, Jr., v. Virginia POWERS and Gladys V. Grogan. Appeal of Gladys V. GROGAN
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1978-03-23
Citations: 477 Pa. 306
Docket Number: No. 125
Parties: Ruth MARSHALL and William Marshall, Jr., v. Virginia POWERS and Gladys V. Grogan. Appeal of Gladys V. GROGAN.
Judges: Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 477
Pages: 306–311

Head Matter:
383 A.2d 946
Ruth MARSHALL and William Marshall, Jr., v. Virginia POWERS and Gladys V. Grogan. Appeal of Gladys V. GROGAN.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Jan. 13, 1978.
Decided March 23, 1978.
Rearguments Denied May 15, 1978.
LaBrum & Doak, James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Wilfred F. Lorry, Philadelphia, for appellees.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In this case, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia granted a motion by the plaintiff-appellees to strike new matter filed by the defendant-appellant which raised as a defense a release which allegedly discharged defendant-appellant from liability. The motion to strike alleged the release was obtained in violation of the Act of June 9, 1972, P.L. 359, No. 97, § 1, 12 P.S. § 1630 (Supp.1977-78). The defendant-appellant appealed from the order granting the motion to strike to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed per curiam. The defendant-appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal and we granted the petition.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas is interlocutory, see Adcox v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass'n Cas. Ins. Co., 419 Pa. 170, 213 A.2d 366 (1965), and hence, the Superior Court erred in entertaining an appeal therefrom in the absence of a certification pursuant to Section 501(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, § 501(b), 17 P.S. 211.501(b) (Supp.1977-78).
Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is vacated and the record is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with a procedendo.
We express no view on the merits of the issue which resulted in the Court of Common Pleas order granting the motion to strike.
LARSEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.