Slotsky v. GELLAR, 314 A.2d 495

Slotsky v. GELLAR

314 A.2d 495

Pa.

1974

Check Treatment

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

Penn Radio Cab, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the taxicab business in Philadelphia. Fifty percent of the stock issued by thе corporation is owned by Morris Slotsky and the remaining fifty per cent of such stock is owned by Jack Cellar and Kate Cellar, his wife. Dissidence arose among the shareholders, and on April 2, 1969, Slotsky filed a petition under the Business Corporation Law * requesting the Court of Commоn Pleas to appoint a custodian for the corporation. Am extended evidentiary hearing ensued and on December 22, 1969, the trial court entered an adjudication and order granting the pеtition. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍Exceptions to this adjudication and order were subsequently dismissеd by a court en banc, and the order was made final. The appointment of a custodian for the corporation then follоwed. No appeal was filed.

On December 18, 1970, the court sur pеtition by Slotsky issued a rule to show cause why a liquidating receiver should not be appointed to sell the assets of the corporаtion. Further hearings followed before a judge other than the one who presided at the hearing on the initial petition. On March 2, 1972, the judgе, after hearing oral argument from counsel, stated orally from the bench, “as a result of all that I have heard both formally and informally and everything else, I came to the very firm conclusion, I came to this ruling, I am not appointing a liquidating trustee. ...” This adjudication or ruling was nоt then transcribed and filed in the prothonotary’s office but nonethеless Slot-sky filed an appeal in the Superior Court on March 29, 1972, frоm the trial court’s oral pronouncement. On November 20, 1972, the trial сourt filed an adjudication and order in the prothonotary’s office dismissing *151 the petition for the appointment of a liquidating recеiver and directing that this adjudication become final unless exceptions were filed thereto within twenty ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍days. No exceptions were filed. On March 19, 1973, the Superior Court transferred Slotsky’s appeal here, presumably because the action was one in equity.

While аn adjudication may be made orally in open court at the end of the trial, in such an event the adjudication should forthwith be transcribed and filed in the office of the prothonotary. See Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1517(b). And the date upon which ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the order is docketed is the starting date for the appeal time to run. Burdett Oxygen Co. v. I. R. Wolfe & Sons, Inc., 433 Pa. 291, 249 A. 2d 299 (1969). Additionally, where an action such as this is tried before the court without a jury, an appeal does not lie until a court en banc has passed on the exceptions to the trial court’s adjudication or, if none are filed, until the prothonotary enters the adjudication as final. See Community Sports, Inc. v. Oakland Oaks, 429 Pa. 412, 240 A. 2d 491 (1968); Meitner v. Scarborough, 321 Pa. 212, 184 A. 81 (1936); Frankel v. Reliance Mutual Life ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍Insurance Company of Illinois, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 295, 184 A. 2d 305 (1962). Hence, thе appeal in this case was premature and must be quashed. However, in the interest of justice the record will be remanded to the trial court with directions to allow Slotsky a reasonable oрportunity to file exceptions to the trial court’s adjudication of November 20, 1972. After a final order is entered, if either party wishes to appeal, such an appeal should be filed in the Supеrior Court. An action under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law is аn action at law and not one in equity.

It is so ordered.

Notes

See Section 513.1A(2) of the Act of July 20, 1968, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍P. L. 459, No. 216, 15 P.S. §1513.1.