Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, No. 3336, Equity Docket 1967, in case of Rothermel L. Caplan v. Keystone Weaving Mills, Inc. et al.
Theodore R. Mann, with him Gerald Gornish, and Goodis, Greenfield, Narin & Mann, for appellant.
Michael L. Temin, with him Charles H. Weidner, and Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, and Stevens & Lee, for appellees.
Robert D. Abrahams, and Abrahams & Loewenstein, for appellee.
Alonzo R. Horsey, and Henderson, Wetherill & O'Hey, for appellees.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Eagen. Mr. Justice Cohen dissents.
This action in equity seeking specific performance of a written agreement was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. At the time, the corporate defendant had its business office in the county of suit. It has since been established in Lebanon County. Deputized service of the complaint was made on the individual defendant, Hyman S. Caplan, at his residence in Montgomery County. Deputized service of the complaint on the other individual defendant, Bernerd Caplan, was made at his residence in Lebanon County.
Jurisdiction of the court of Berks County over the person of the defendants because of lack of valid service of the complaint was challenged through preliminary
objections. Likewise, the question of proper venue was raised and a petition for a change of venue was filed.
The lower court sustained the objection to the validity of the service of process on the two individual defendants, but dismissed a similar objection as to the corporate defendant. The correctness of this action is not challenged here. However, the court acting pursuant to the authority given in Sections (d) and (e) in Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure*fn1 ordered the action transferred to Lebanon County. From this order, the plaintiff appeals.
An interlocutory order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute. Adcox v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Assoc. Casualty Co., 419 Pa. 170, 213 A.2d 366 (1965). It is conceded that the order appealed from herein is interlocutory, but it is maintained that a question of jurisdiction is involved and, therefore, an appeal is ...