
    Tobin v. Tobin., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Interlocutory order — Divorce—Subpoena.
    No appeal lies from an order discharging a rule to show cause why-service of a subpoena in divorce should not be set aside. Such order is interlocutory.
    Argued Nov. 23, 1906.
    Appeal, No. 31, Oct. T., 1906, by defendant, from order of C. P. Del. Co., discharging rule to set aside subpoena in divorce in case of Mary N. Tobin v. Francis Tracy Tobin.
    Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Ort.ady and Head, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Rule to set aside service of subpoena in divorce.
    
      Error assigned was order discharging rule to set aside service of subpoena.
    
      December 10, 1906 :
    
      Francis Tracy Tobin, p. p.
    
      O. B. Dickinson, with him A. F. Peterson, for appellee.
   Pee Cueiam,

This is an appeal from an order discharging a rule to show cause why service of the subpoena in divorce should not be set aside. Such order is clearly interlocutory, and not the subject of an independent appeal: Lycoming Fire Insurance Co. v. Storrs, 97 Pa. 354; Phila. & Reading R. R. Co. v. Snowdon, 161 Pa. 201; Platt v. Belsena Coal Mining Co., 191 Pa. 215. Therefore the motion to quash the appeal must be sustained.

Appeal quashed, the costs to be paid by the appellant.  