Case Name: BUCKNOR'S APPEAL
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-11-10
Citations: 4 Walk. 331
Docket Number: No. 139
Parties: BUCKNOR’S APPEAL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
BUCKNOR’S APPEAL.
An administrator can not appeal from an order of the Orphans5-Court directing him to make sale for payment of debts.
Appeal from Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County,. No. 139 July Term, 1884.
.. The decree appealed from was that Wm. EL Bucknor, administrator of A. J. Bucknor, forthwith expose the decedent’s real estate to public auction sale, for the purpose of paying debts, and make return thereof. Frank P. Moody, alleging that he is a judgment creditor of decedent, took a rule to quash the appeal, because the decree was not final; and, 2nd, the administrator could not appeal.
Henry C. Terry, Esq., for rule,
argued that this was not such ■a final decree from which an appeal would lie; Mitchell’s Appeal, 60 Pa., 502; Valentine’s Appeal, 3 W. N. C., 471; Gesell’s Appeal, 84 Pa., 238; Snodgrass’ Appeal, 96 Pa., 420; Eckfeldt’s Appeal, 13 Pa., 172. The administrator could not •appeal if there were a decree distributing a fund in his hands; Mellon’s Appeal, 32 Pa., 121; Stineman’s Appeal, 34 Pa., 394; Sharp’s Appeal, 3 Gr., 60; Chew’s Appeal, 3 Gr., 308; Craig’s Appeal, 38 Pa., 330.
S. G. Thompson, Esq., contra,
argued that an order to sell forth with was a final' decree; Hess’ Appeal, 1 Watts, 255; Gesell’s Appeal, 84 Pa., 238; Robinson’s Appeal, 62 Pa., 217. Snodgrass Appeal, 96 Pa., 421, was different, in this respect; that was a a ■order to permit the executors to sell; this case is an order commanding the administrator to sell.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court made the following order :
Per Curiam.
And now, 10th November, 1884, rule to show cause why appeal shall not be quashed made absolute.