Ball v. Hill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ball v. Hill

30 A.2d 114, 346 Pa. 283, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 320

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 11, 1943

DocketAppeal, 14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.2d 114 (Ball v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ball v. Hill, 30 A.2d 114, 346 Pa. 283, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 320 (Pa. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

George W. Ball and. Anna C. Ball, his wife, and Edwin L. Miller and Minnie Katherine Miller, his wife, brought this action against R. Kenneth Hill (the joinder of the plaintiffs being permitted by Pa. R. C. P. 2229(a)) to recover damages sustained by them as the result of a collision between two automobiles. The four plaintiffs were in one of the cars, which was owned by Ball and driven by Miller. Defendant, who operated the other car, contends that the accident happened through the negligence of Miller, and that Miller was Ball’s agent and driving on Ball’s business. Not being able to bring in Miller and Ball as additional defendants, since they were already parties to the action (Pa. R. C. P. 2252(a)), he obtained a rule for severance of the action so that in the case of Ball and his wife he could join Miller as an additional defendant, and in the case of Miller and his wife could join Ball as an additional defendant. The court discharged the rule and defendant appeals.

The appeal is from an interlocutory order and must be quashed. However, attention is called to the Note accompanying the amendment to Pa. R. C. P. 2252(a), adopted and promulgated by this court on December 30, 1942.

Appeal quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

George W. Ball and. Anna C. Ball, his wife, and Edwin L. Miller and Minnie Katherine Miller, his wife, brought this action against R. Kenneth Hill (the joinder of the plaintiffs being permitted by Pa. R. C. P. 2229(a)) to recover damages sustained by them as the result of a collision between two automobiles. The four plaintiffs were in one of the cars, which was owned by Ball and driven by Miller. Defendant, who operated the other car, contends that the accident happened through the negligence of Miller, and that Miller was Ball’s agent and driving on Ball’s business. Not being able to bring in Miller and Ball as additional defendants, since they were already parties to the action (Pa. R. C. P. 2252(a)), he obtained a rule for severance of the action so that in the case of Ball and his wife he could join Miller as an additional defendant, and in the case of Miller and his wife could join Ball as an additional defendant. The court discharged the rule and defendant appeals.

The appeal is from an interlocutory order and must be quashed. However, attention is called to the Note accompanying the amendment to Pa. R. C. P. 2252(a), adopted and promulgated by this court on December 30, 1942.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.2d 114, 346 Pa. 283, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-hill-pa-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack