Court Opinion

ID: 9747489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:18:07.970436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:24.109117
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
While I concur in the majority’s conclusion that this interlocutory order is appealable under the Act of 1925, I do so because I feel that, since Pa. R.C.P. 1112 goes to the power of the various courts of common pleas to entertain actions in quo warranto, it is more a rule of “jurisdiction” than of “venue.” Not all objections to “venue” are similarly appealable. Caplan v. Keystone Weaving Mills, 431 Pa. 407, 246 A. 2d 384 (1968).