Case Name: Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D., Appellant, v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin G. Miller and Jean Aboyan; Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D. v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin Miller and Jean Aboyan. Appeal of Arthur TUCHINSKY and Debby Tuchinsky
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1982-01-08
Citations: 294 Pa. Super. 331
Docket Number: Nos. 2183 and 2184
Parties: Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D., Appellant, v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin G. Miller and Jean Aboyan. Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D. v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin Miller and Jean Aboyan. Appeal of Arthur TUCHINSKY and Debby Tuchinsky.
Judges: Before PRICE, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 294
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
439 A.2d 1226
Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D., Appellant, v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin G. Miller and Jean Aboyan. Anthony L. CENTRONE, M. D. v. Arthur TUCHINSKY, Debby Tuchinsky, Martin Miller and Jean Aboyan. Appeal of Arthur TUCHINSKY and Debby Tuchinsky.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Feb. 17, 1981.
Filed Jan. 8, 1982.
Albert M. Sardella, West Chester, for appellant (at No. 2183) and for appellee (at No. 2184).
Lawrence Aglow, West Chester, submitted a brief on behalf of Tuchinsky, appellants (at No. 2184) and for appel-lees (at No. 2183).
Before PRICE, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
These are cross-appeals from a final Order awarding plaintiff/appellant a verdict in the amount of $10,000. However, we cannot reach the merits of the case.
On September 20, 1979, the lower court, after a non-jury trial, found for the plaintiff in the amount of $42,000 plus interest and costs. On September 24, 1979, judgment was entered for that amount on the docket. On September 28, 1979, exceptions to the Order were filed, and subsequently on May 20, 1980, the court en banc sustained in part and dismissed in part the exceptions.
An appeal does not lie until a court en banc has ruled upon the exceptions to the trial court's adjudication. See Slotsky v. Gellar, 455 Pa. 148, 314 A.2d 495 (1974). Judgment was entered before the court ruled upon the exceptions. The entry of judgment was premature and, therefore, it is void.
Accordingly, the appeals are quashed.
PRICE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.