NO. 03416 PHILADELPHIA, 1982, Appeal from the Judgment entered on November 3, 1982, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Civil Division, at No. S-1283-81. NO. 00590 PHILADELPHIA, 1983, Appeal from the Order entered on February 7, 1983, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Civil Division, at No. S-1849-82.
Richard Wagner, Schuylkill Haven, for appellant.
Joseph H. Jones, Jr., Pottsville, for appellee.
Cirillo, Beck and Johnson, JJ. Johnson, J. files a concurring statement.
[ 331 Pa. Super. Page 139]
This case requires us to consider whether a corporation may appear in court and be represented by a corporate officer and shareholder who is not an attorney. We hold that a corporation may not be represented by a person who is not an attorney in our courts.
We have before us consolidated appeals stemming from two separate actions involving two different transactions between the parties. In No. 3416 Philadelphia 1982 ("No. 3416"), appellee Joseph Walacavage ("Walacavage") sued appellant Excell 2000, Inc. ("Excell") on a loan from Walacavage to Excell, alleging that Excell had failed to make any payments. The case proceeded to trial without a jury; the court found for Walacavage in the amount of $17,605.47. Excell appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict. In No. 590 Philadelphia 1983 ("No. 590"), Walacavage brought an action against Excell, claiming that Excell had breached a partnership agreement between it and Walacavage regarding the purchase of a parcel of land. Excell appeals from an order of the lower court granting Walacavage's preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to strike the preliminary objections of Excell and accordingly dismissing Excell's preliminary objections to Walacavage's
[ 331 Pa. Super. Page 140]
complaint. We affirm the court below at No. 3416 and quash the appeal at No. 590.
Both of Excell's appeals present serious procedural defects. In No. 3416, appellant Excell filed no exceptions to the decision of the trial judge. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1038(d),*fn1 "matters not covered by exceptions are deemed waived." Therefore, appellant has preserved no issues for appellate review, and we must affirm the judgment. Knisely v. Knisely, 295 Pa. Super. 240, 441 A.2d 438 (1982).
In No. 590, Excell has attempted to take an appeal from an interlocutory order. The court's order is in effect no more than an order dismissing Excell's preliminary objections. Such an order is not final; neither party is put out of court. We have consistently held that an appeal does not lie from an order dismissing preliminary objections which do not raise a question of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Balter v. Balter, 284 Pa. Super. 350, 425 A.2d 1138 (1981); 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue Corp. v. Southland Corp., 236 Pa. Super. 102, 344 A.2d 582 (1975).*fn2 Therefore, the appeal at No. 590 is interlocutory and must be quashed.
The underlying issue, one of first impression in Pennsylvania, is whether the trial court erred in denying Excell, a corporation, the right to be represented in court by a non-lawyer who in this case was a corporate officer.
All of Excell's pleadings, motions, and briefs filed with both the lower court and this Court are signed by Richard J. Wagner, who describes himself as the "President and Stockholder" of Excell. Wagner is not a member of the bar of this or any other jurisdiction. In No. ...