Boerio v. Boerio
| Decision Date | 03 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | 272-1936 |
| Citation | 134 Pa.Super. 501,4 A.2d 614 |
| Parties | Boerio v. Boerio, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued April 22, 1936.
Appeal from decree of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Aug. T., 1934, No. 168, in case of Robert Boerio v. Julia Boerio.
Petition and rule for allowance of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees and expenses. Before Copeland. P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Order entered discharging rule and dismissing petition. Respondent appealed.
Error assigned, was discharge of rule.
Appeal quashed.
James Gregg, of Gregg & Copeland, with him Frank Ruff, Jr., for appellant.
A. H. Bell, with him J. Clarke Bell, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.
This was an appeal by a wife from an order of the court below refusing to allow her counsel fees and alimony in a divorce action pending against her as respondent in that court. The order was an interlocutory one from which no appeal lies: Murray v. Murray, 78 Pa.Super. 443. We pointed out in the case of Gould v. Gould, 95 Pa.Super. 387, the distinction, in that respect, between an appeal by one who has been ordered to pay alimony, etc. and an appeal by one who has been refused alimony.
The correct practice where the court has made an order refusing counsel fees, alimony, etc., was pointed out in Murray v. Murray, supra, p. 445, where we said: "Such an order is in no sense final; it can be excepted to but cannot be reviewed until a final decree has been entered in the divorce proceedings and the appeal is properly before this court." The refusal can then be assigned for error and will be considered along with the appeal on the merits: Fisher v. Fisher, 74 Pa.Super. 538, 545, 547, 548.
Disposition of this appeal was accordingly withheld until the appeal on the merits was argued.
Subsequently, on April 19, 1937, the appeal from the decree granting libellant a divorce from respondent, (this appellant), was non-prossed, but our attention was not drawn to it, and, as a result, this appeal was left undisposed of.
The appeal is quashed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fried v. Fried
...316 Pa.Super. 54, 462 A.2d 789 (1983); Paul v. Paul, supra; Hanson v. Hanson, 177 Pa.Super. 384, 110 A.2d 750 (1955); Boerio v. Boerio, 134 Pa.Super. 501, 4 A.2d 614 (1939). Although, under prior law it may have been valid to conclude that these matters should receive immediate review, we m......
-
Sutliff v. Sutliff
...Paul v. Paul, 281 Pa.Super. 202, 421 A.2d 1219 (1980). Hanson v. Hanson, 177 Pa.Super. 384, 110 A.2d 750 (1955); Boerio v. Boerio, 134 Pa.Super. 501, 4 A.2d 614 (1939). Although recognizing this distinction, Wife asks us to change the rule and hold both grants and denials final and appealab......
-
Hanson v. Hanson
...award alimony pendente lite, since such an order is wholly interlocutory: Murray v. Murray, 78 Pa.Super. 443. See also Boerio v. Boerio, 164 Pa.Super. 501, 4 A.2d 614.2 This was the date originally fixed for the hearing. An order for alimony pendente lite may not relate back beyond the date......
-
Paul v. Paul
... ... appeal does not lie Rutherford v. Rutherford, 152 ... Pa.Super. 517, 32 A.2d 921 (1943); Boerio v. Boerio, ... 134 Pa.Super. 501, 4 A.2d 614 (1938); Murray v. Murray, 78 ... [281 Pa.Super. 208] Pa.Super. 443 (1922). As stated in 2 ... ...