
    Fleming’s Estate.
    
      Appeals — Interlocutory order — Demurrer—Overruling demurrer to petition.
    
    A decree of the orphans’ court overruling a demurrer to a petition to reopen and review an account theretofore confirmed, is interlocutory, and from it no appeal lies.
    Argued Feb. 26, 1907.
    Appeal, No. 281, Jan. T., 1906, by James R. Fleming et al., from decree of O. C. Wayne Co., No. 91, O. C. D. “ II ” overruling demurrer to petition in Estate of Thomas J. Fleming, deceased.
    Appeal quashed.
    Petition to reopen and review an account previously confirmed by the court.
    The administrator demurred to the petition.
    The court entered a decree overruling the demurrer. An answer was then filed.
    
      Error assigned was decree overruling the demurrer.
    
      Leonard J. Reynolds, L. M. Atkinson and D. F. Fortney, for motion to quash.
    A long line of decisions in this court holds that an appeal from any interlocutory order or decree of the orphans’ court does not lie, such order or decree not being definitive; that when any proceedings are still pending in the orphans’ court, where anything remains to be done, the order or decree is interlocutory only and not appealable, and that an appeal cannot be taken until a final disposition of the case and an order in pursuance thereof: Logan v. Jennings, 4 Rawle, 355; Eckfeldt’s Appeal, 13 Pa. 171; Snodgrass’s Appeal, 96 Pa. 420; Williams’s Est., 140 Pa. 187; Jones’s Appeal, 99 Pa. 124; Robinson v. Glancy, 69 Pa. 89; Catterson’s Appeal, 100 Pa. 9; Palethrop’s Est., 160 Pa. 316; Wistar’s Appeal, 115 Pa. 241; Gesell’s Appeal, 84 Pa. 238; Long’s Estate, 168 Pa. 341; Cherry Township v. Sullivan County, 30 Pa. Superior Ct. 502.
    
      James J. O’Malley, E. O. Mumford and M. J. Martin, contra.
    The order appealed from is a final order: Bradly v. Potts, 155 Pa. 418.
   Per Curiam:

Appeal quashed at bar.  