Court Opinion

ID: 9645159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:14:30.31572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:24.197035
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the majority that the part of this appeal which was taken from the Order of the court below refusing appellants’ motion for a new trial and judgment, N.O.V. is interlocutory and unappealable as no judgment has been entered.
However, I respectfully disagree with the majority as to the order refusing to strike the compulsory nonsuit.
“An appeal does not lie from the entry of a judgment of nonsuit but rather from the refusal to take it off .... (Citations deleted) This applies to actions at law as well as in *406equity.” Kukich v. Serbian E. Orth. Ch. of Pittsburgh, 415 Pa. 28, 28-29, 202 A.2d 77 (1964). See also: Jervis Will, 443 Pa. 226, 279 A.2d 151 (1971). Therefore, that part of the decision of the lower court refusing to take off the nonsuit is properly before this court for review. As the evidence against Damon and H. Gilroy Damon, an individual, and Haag is insufficient to prove a case against them or any of them, the granting of a compulsory nonsuit was proper.
I would affirm that part of the decision of the court below which sustains the motions for nonsuit in favor of Damon, H. Gilroy Damon, an individual and Haag; I would quash the appeal of the Nether Providence Township School Authority.