Case Name: International Coal Mining Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1906-03-19
Citations: 214 Pa. 474
Docket Number: No. 2; Appeal, No. 272
Parties: International Coal Mining Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
International Coal Mining Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
(No. 2).
Appeals — Interlocutory order — Evidence—Rule for an attachment.
An order under a rule for an attachment against a witness directing that the proceedings shall stand over until a day named, in order to give the witness an opportunity to testify or to come into court, is not a final order from which an appeal lies, inasmuch as the appellant was mot directed by the order to answer the question propounded to him.
Argued Jan. 19, 1906.
Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1905, by William A. Patton, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 3,929, in attachment proceedings in case of International Coal Mining Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Appeal quashed.
Rule for an attachment against a witness.
Error assigned was order quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
John G. Johnson, for appellant.
James W. M. Newlin, for appellee.
March 19, 1906:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
This appeal was premature. The order from which it was taken was not a final one. The appellant was not ordered to answer the questions propounded. His appeal, taken Septemb.er 15, 1905, was from an order made on July 26,1905, direct ing that the proceeding instituted to compel him to answer should stand over until September 18, 1905, " in order to give him an opportunity to appear before the notary and testify, or otherwise to come into court and set forth such matters of fact as he may deem pertinent to show cause why the rule for attachment should not be made absolute."
Appeal quashed.