Appeals — Appealable order — Interlocutory order — Action of assumpsit — Adequacy of reply — Denial of defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings — Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64.
1. An order refusing defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (which consist of a complaint in assumpsit, an answer and new matter setting forth an affirmative defense, and a reply to the new matter), is interlocutory, and not appealable. [252-3]
2. An interlocutory order or decree is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute. [253]
3. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, does not apply to the present circumstances. [253]
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN, April 21, 1964:
These are appeals by two defendants from an order below, refusing their motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action of assumpsit, in which each filed an answer and new matter to which the plaintiff filed a reply. The motion for judgment is based on the alleged inadequacy of the reply to an affirmative defense set forth under new matter in the answers.
The order below is interlocutory and as such is not appealable, unless expressly made so by statute. See, Stadler v. Mt. Oliver Borough, 373 Pa. 316, 95 A.2d 776 (1953); Reading Co. v. Willow Dev. Co., Inc., 407 Pa. 469, 181 A.2d 288 (1962); Nosal v. Nosal, 410 Pa. 304, 189 A.2d 262 (1963). There is no statute which expressly makes appealable an order refusing a defendant's motion for want of a sufficient reply to new matter. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 1097, does not apply to the circumstances here obtaining, Epstein v. Kramer, 374 Pa. 112, 96 A.2d 912 (1953), and McGee v. Singley, 382 Pa. 18, 114 A.2d 141 (1955).
Appeals quashed.