Court Opinion

ID: 9747726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:29:13.198803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:26.001899
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
On December 9, 1975, appellant entered final judgment on the award, of the arbitrators. The lower court’s action in granting this appeal nunc pro tunc by its order dated January 8, 1976,1 is completely silent on this matter. If, as the majority suggests, appellant must undertake a trial before being able to raise this matter on appeal, the trial will take place while a final, valid judgment is on the record in appellant’s favor. This is a result that surely cannot be intended, nor indeed permitted.
The appellees’ action in petitioning for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc was in reality mounting an attack on the judgment and while their ingenuity in approach *474may be commendable, the action is still an attempt to open the judgment. And although the lower court does not directly open the judgment, the effect of the nunc pro tunc appeal must, in common sense, be given that effect. The majority recognizes this possibility (244 Pa.Super. 472, 368 A.2d 818 fn. 3) but dismisses the option as a circumvention of the statute which does not provide for such an appeal. Presumably this reference is to the Act of 1836 which sets forth the provisions of compulsory arbitration and the appeal procedure. But I do not so interpret that procedure to be controlling under the situation here presented.
The clear result of the appellees’ action and the lower court’s order is to open a final judgment. As such it is appealable.
And, if appealable, the majority has very ably demonstrated that the action was improper and in error.
I would reverse the order of the lower court and affirm the judgment, presently of record, in favor of appellant.
VAN der VOQRT and SPAETH, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

. Interestingly, the Order bears this date, although the appellees’ petition was not docketed until January 12, 1976.