Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Lena Fineberg, Arnold Fineberg, Ethel Insler, Ralph Fineberg, Rosie Malhmood, a/k/a Rosie Malamud, Jeannette Berman (formerly Jeannette Fineberg) and Cecelia Sharp v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburg, No. G.D. 76-9495 Sur. No. 1318 January Term, 1972.
Thomas R. Solomich, with him Rothman, Gordon, Foreman and Groudine, P.A., for appellants.
Marion E. Popiel, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 44 Pa. Commw. Page 630]
On November 3, 1971, the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (Authority) filed a declaration of taking condemning certain real estate, described by metes and bounds, owned by Lena Fineberg, Arnold Fineberg, Ethel Insler, Ralph Fineberg,
[ 44 Pa. Commw. Page 631]
Rosie Malhmood, a/k/a Rosie Malamud, Jeannette Berman, and Cecelia Sharp (appellants) and located in the Third Ward of the City of Pittsburgh. On May 3, 1976, the Authority filed a petition for the appointment of viewers and attached thereto as exhibit A the metes-and-bounds description set forth in the declaration of taking.*fn1
[ 44 Pa. Commw. Page 632]
On November 16, 1977, the report of viewers was filed, and an award was made to the appellants in the amount of $11,900. The Authority was to be allowed a credit for the payment of $7,000 made to appellants on December 21, 1971, the date on which delay compensation would be calculated.
The Authority filed an appeal from the award of viewers, and the appellants filed a motion to quash the appeal. The motion to quash presented to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County the contention that the Authority's appeal from the award of viewers failed to satisfy the requirement of Section 516(a)(2) of the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Spec. Sess., P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. § 1-516(a)(2). The court below denied the appellants' motion to quash but granted the Authority 10 days to file a more detailed description and identification of the property than had been included in the appeal. This appeal followed.
Initially, we must determine whether the order appealed from here is interlocutory and, as such, not appealable. Although the order is interlocutory, it determined the jurisdiction question of whether the appeal by the Authority was properly taken from the viewers' award to the Court of Common Pleas. Exxon Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 301, 312 A.2d 121 (1973). Section 1 of the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, as ...