Court Opinion

ID: 9699538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:31:16.221602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:52.249051
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones,
In my opinion it is most important that we clearly point out why we consider the present order an appealable order under the new Eminent Domain Codé (Code).
This appeal is brought under §523 of the Code which provides: “Either party may appeal to the Supreme or Superior Court as the case may be, from any final order or judgment of the court of common pleas within forty-five days from the entry thereof.” (Emphasis supplied)
*294Is the instant order a final order within §523? This order overruled a preliminary objection filed under §406 of the' Code, an objection which challenged the -power or. right of the condemnor to appropriate the property.
•Section- .406 provides that the' exclusive method of challenging the power or right of a condemnor to..tahe property by eminent .domain is by way of preliminary objections. • Section 406. empowers the court to “make such preliminary and final orders and decrees as justice shall , require.” If the overruling of a preliminary objection challenging the basic.power or right to condemn is not a, final order, what method can be utilized to bring expeditiously to the appellate level so vital an issue? No other procedure than that provided by §40.6 is outlined by the Code. Section 515 which provides for appeals from viewers!, reports and provides such appeals shall “raise all objections of law or fact to the viewers’ report”, certainly does not. furnish .such procedure. I cannot perceive how an objection to the power and right to condemn can be equated-. with an “objection” to a report of: viewers in view of. the express' provision in the code restricting the raising of an objection to. the power: or right to.condemn exclusively to procedure by preliminary objections.
..The language of §406 coupled with the logic of providing an expeditious and time saving device for the immediate determination of the basic power or right to condemn compel only one conclusion, i.e., that an order which determines this vital question be determined initially in the proceeding and be considered final and definitive so that appellate review, if sought, should be immediately available.
Such a conclusion is in line with our case law (Central Con. Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co., Inc., 418 Pa. 122, 209 A. 2d 810; Sullivan v. Phila., 378 Pa. 648, 107 A.2d 854) which holds that a court order -which so restricts and limits a party’s further action as “to put *295it oiit of court” for all intents and purposes should be appealable.
In my view the legislature under the Code provisions has clearly expressed its intent'to make an Order such as we herein consider a final order from which an appeal will lie.