Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LAUREL NATIONAL BANK v. MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY (02/05/82)

filed: February 5, 1982.

THE LAUREL NATIONAL BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY



No. 612 April Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Civil Division, at No. 1977-1010.

COUNSEL

Edward Peduzzi, Ebensburg, for appellant.

R. Thomas Strayer, Johnstown, for appellee.

Spaeth, Wickersham and Lipez, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 256]

The instant appeal comes to us as a result of an order of the lower court awarding appellant, Laurel National Bank ("Laurel Bank"), insurance coverage as mortgagee under one mortgage but denying it coverage on the same property and under the same policy under its second mortgage. Laurel Bank contends that both mortgages should be covered by the insurance policy and that the amount due under the policy should not be limited to its preforeclosure debt.

Laurel Bank filed a complaint in assumpsit against Mutual Benefit Insurance, which case came on for trial before the Honorable Eugene A. Creany in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County on May 3, 1978, non-jury. On January 2, 1979, Judge Creany entered an order directing that Mutual

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 257]

Benefit Insurance Company pay to the Laurel National Bank the sum of $25,000.00, representing the pre-foreclosure value of the first mortgage. In compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 1038, exceptions were filed, briefed and argued and on June 15, 1979 the exceptions were dismissed en banc.

Laurel Bank took a direct appeal to this court from such order entered on June 15, 1979. Final judgment was not entered.

As we said in Murray v. Abcon, Inc., 291 Pa. Super. 428, 435 A.2d 1301 (1981):

Orders dismissing exceptions following non-jury trials are interlocutory and non-appealable until judgment has been entered on the docket. See, e.g., Heffner v. Bock, 287 Pa. Super. 345, 430 A.2d 318 (1981); Lashner v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, 286 Pa. Super. 549, 429 A.2d 659 (1981); Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167, 427 A.2d 165 (1981); Penstan Supply Co. v. Hay, 283 Pa. Super. 558, 424 A.2d 950 (1981). Similarly, orders dismissing post-trial motions following jury trials are interlocutory and non-appealable until entry of final judgment. See, e.g., Slagter v. Thrifty Clean, Inc. (Slagter v. Mix), 441 Pa. 272, 272 A.2d 885 (1971); Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc. v. Nether Providence Township School Authority, 291 Pa. Super. 402, 435 A.2d 1288 (1981); Brogley v. Chambersburg Engineering Co., 283 Pa. Super. 562, 424 A.2d 952 (1981). These decisions rest upon Rule 301 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides in pertinent part:

(a) Entry upon docket below. No order shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.