
    Wenger v. Wenger, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Interlocutory order — Divorce—Amendment of libel — Act of May 19,1897, P. L. 67,
    
    An order making absolute a rule to amend a libel in divorce is an interlocutory order from which, no appeal lies. If an appeal ip taken from it’ the appellate court will impose the penalty provided by the Act of May 19,1897, P. L. 67, for suing out an appeal merely for delay.
    Argued Oct. 16, 1912.
    Appeal, No. 74, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 1,363, making absolute rule to amend libel in case of Lizzie Wenger v. Morris Wenger.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Porter, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Libel in divorce.
    Motion to quash appeal.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      Harry Shapiro, with him B. 7. DeYoung and John C. Bell, for appellant.
    
      
      Frederick J. Shoyer, with, him Henry Arronson, for appellee.
    October 14, 1912:
   Per Curiam,

The only matter assigned for error on this appeal is the making absolute of the libelant’s rule to show cause why the libel should not be amended. This order was merely interlocutory. It was not in any 'proper sense a final sentence or decree from which alone an appeal lies to this court. The appeal was therefore unauthorized. The result of the appeal, as was said in Richardson v. Richardson, 193 Pa. 279, has been an unnecessary and vexatious delay of considerable period in prosecuting the case to final decree, and, as said in that case, we think the undisputed facts bring the case within the mischief intended to be remedied by the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, authorizing the imposition of penalties for suing out appeals merely for delay.

It is therefore ordered, on motion of appellee’s attorney, that the appeal be quashed, and that as further costs an attorney’s fee of $25.00 be awarded against the appellant.  