
    Philadelphia, Appellant, v. Miller.
    December 16, 1904:
    
      Appeals — Premature appeal — Motion to quash — Judgment—Verdict.
    Where an appeal has been taken without judgment having been entered upon the verdict in the court below, and the appellee insists that the appeal shall be quashed for that reason, the motion to quash must prevail.
    Argued Oct. 6, 1904.
    Appeal, No. 21, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 1186, on verdict for defendant in case of Philadelphia v. Theodore F. Miller, Jules Wellens and Wesley Stead.
    Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Smith, Porter and Morrison, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Appeal from award of road jury.
    Motion to quash.
    
      Francis S. Cantrell, Jr., with him Francis S. Cantrell, for appellants.
    
      James Alcorn, assistant city solicitor, with him George E. Fili and JohnL. Kinsey, city solicitor, for appellee.
   Opinion by Porter, J.,

When this appeal was taken no judgment had been entered upon the verdict in the court below. The appellees have moved to quash the appeal upon that ground, and upon that motion now insist. In some cases, wherein appeals were improvidently taken before judgment was entered, judgment having been entered subsequently, we have treated the appeal as post-dating the entry of the judgment, and thus sustained the proceedings ; but in those cases there was no motion to quash upon that ground, or such motion was not pressed. The appellees in the present case have not only raised the question but persist in the assertion of their technical right, and the motion must prevail: Kimmel v. Johnson, 18 Pa. Superior Ct. 429; Wolff v. Wilson, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 266.

The appeal is quashed.  