
    Carter, Appellant, v. Caldwell.
    
      Appeals — Practice (Supreme Court) — Mechanics Liens.
    
    An appeal does not lie from the refusal of the court to strike off a mechanic’s claim. In such a case there is no final judgment.
    
      Aliter, if the court strikes off the claim, for then its action is final.
    Argued Jan. 29, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 184, July T., 1891, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1891, discharging a rule to strike off mechanic’s claim.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, McCollum, Mitchell and Hetdrtck, JJ.
    Mechanic’s claim filed by Joseph M. Caldwell, et ah, trading as Caldwell & Johnson, against Joseph H. Carter, owner or reputed owner.
    The defendant entered a rule to strike off the claim, alleging various defects. On June 27, 1891, the rule was discharged.
    
      Error assigned was the order discharging the rule.
    
      W. A. Manderson, for appellant.
    
      Edward S. McIntyre, for appellee.
    February 8, 1892.
   Per Curiam,

We do not think an appeal lies to the refusal of the court below to strike off a mechanic’s claim, for the reason that there is no final judgment. When the court strikes off the claim, the case is otherwise, for its action is final.

Appeal quashed.  