Case Name: O'Hara v. Parrish et al., Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1926-11-17
Citations: 89 Pa. Super. 177
Docket Number: Appeal No. 115
Parties: O’Hara v. Parrish et al., Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter,, P. J:, Henderson, Trent ter, Helper, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 177–179

Head Matter:
O’Hara v. Parrish et al., Appellant.
Argued October 6, 1926.
Before Porter,, P. J:, Henderson, Trent ter, Helper, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.
November 17, 1926:
Bosewell Hammond, and with him Wm. L. Hammond, for appellant.
John P. Connelly, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion bv
Linn, J.,
Plaintiff sued her stock brokers to recover a loss alleged to have resulted from their failure to execute her instructions to sell certain shares of stock. They filed an affidavit of defense denying her averments of liability and counterclaimed for a balance alleged to be due them. To that counterclaim, plaintiff filed a reply. Defendants then moved for judgment for the amount of their counterclaim for want of a sufficient reply, pursuant to section 17 of the Practice Act, 1915 P. L. 483, providing "When the defendant sets up a set-off or counterclaim, he may move for judgment against the plaintiff for want of a reply, or for want of a sufficient reply to the whole or any part of the set-off or counterclaim; and the court may enter judgment for such amount as shall be found due, with leave to proceed for the balance."
The court below refused defendants' motion for judgment and they have appealed.
We know of no statute authorizing an appeal from such an interlocutory order. While section 15 of the Practice Act provides that "The set-off or counterclaim shall be regarded as the defendant's statement of claim, and the plaintiff's reply as an. affidavit of defense thereto, ' ' the refusal of judgment for want of asuffieient reply is not the refusal of judgmentforwant of a sufficient affidavit of defense within the meaning of the ¡act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64: See Smith v. Scholl, 262 Pa. 124, 127, where the applicable rule of construction is considered; Bianchi v. Raynor, 82 Pa. Superior Court 122.
Appeal quashed.