
    Bonner, Appellant, v. Schmeltz.
    
      Judgments — Interlocutory orders — Practice, Supreme Court— Appeals from interlocutory orders.
    
    An order of court sustaining a demurrer to a statement of claim is not a final judgment, and where in such case, no judgment has been entered for defendant, an appeal from such an order will be quashed.
    Argued Oct. 23, 1913.
    Appeals, Nos. 96 and 97, Oct. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1911, Nos. 805 and 806, sustaining demurrer to statement of claim in cases of George Hettrick Bonner v. Doctor Theodore Diller, and George Hettrick Bonner v. Doctor George Schmeltz.
    Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Appeals quashed.
    Trespass for alleged disclosure of professional secrets by a physician.
    The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s statement of claim in each case, but no judgment was entered for defendant. Plaintiff then moved for leave to amend his statements of claim and the court denied the motion. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned, among others, were in sustaining the demurrer and in refusing to allow the amendments.
    
      George Hettrick Bonner, for appellant in both cases.
    
      William A. Challenger, with him Clarence Burleigh, for Dr. Theodore Diller, appellee.
    
      
      M. J. HosacJc, with him George M. HosaeJc, of George M. & M. J. HosacTc, for Dr. George Schmeltz, appellee.
    November 7, 1913:
   Pee Curiam,

There was no final judgment in either of these cases. The demurrer of each defendant was sustained, but this without more was not a final judgment: Vide cases cited in 6 Ency. PI. & Pr. 353. There is no judgment in favor of the defendant from which the plaintiff has appealed. Until there is a final judgment, the question of his right to amend his statements cannot be considered here. Appeals quashed.  