Case Name: Branna Construction Corporation v. West Allegheny Joint School Authority, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1964-04-21
Citations: 414 Pa. 251
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 70 and 75
Parties: Branna Construction Corporation v. West Allegheny Joint School Authority, Appellant.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Boberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 414
Pages: 251–253

Head Matter:
Branna Construction Corporation v. West Allegheny Joint School Authority, Appellant.
Argued March 25, 1964.
Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Boberts, JJ.
Louis Taira, with him John M. Shane, H. A. Robinson, and Dickie, McCamey, Ohilcote & Robinson, for appellants.
John A. Metz, Jr., with him Jacob A. Market, and Metz, Cook, Hanna é Kelly, and Market, Market, Levenson & Fischer, for appellee.
April 21, 1964:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen,
These are appeals by two defendants from an order below, refusing their motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action of assumpsit, in which each filed an answer and new matter to which the plaintiff filed a reply. The motion for judgment is based on the alleged inadequacy of the reply to an affirma tive defense set forth under new matter in the answers.
The order below is interlocutory and as such is not appealable, unless expressly made so by statute. See, Stadler v. Mt. Oliver Borough, 373 Pa. 316, 95 A. 2d 776 (1953); Reading Co. v. Willow Dev. Co., Inc., 407 Pa. 469, 181 A. 2d 288 (1962); Nosal v. Nosal, 410 Pa. 304, 189 A. 2d 262 (1963). There is no statute which expressly makes appealable an order refusing a defendant's motion for want of a sufficient reply to new matter. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, 12 P.S. §1097, does not apply to the circumstances here obtaining, Epstein v. Kramer, 374 Pa. 112, 96 A. 2d 912 (1953), and McGee v. Singley, 382 Pa. 18, 114 A. 2d 141 (1955).
Appeals quashed.