Boyd Scott, Inc. v. Hartenstine

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Boyd Scott, Inc. v. Hartenstine

24 Pa. D. & C. 395, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 383

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

DecidedJuly 22, 1935

Docketno. 65

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Pa. D. & C. 395 (Boyd Scott, Inc. v. Hartenstine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd Scott, Inc. v. Hartenstine, 24 Pa. D. & C. 395, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 383 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Hicks, P. J.,

Section 5 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, provides, inter alia, that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise and summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim but not inferences or conclusions of law.

The statement filed in this case is certainly anything but concise, is repetitious and prolix, and contains conclusions of law. The suit is on a written contract, attached to the statement of claim, in which the several responsibilities of the parties are fully set out. But the pleader is not satisfied with this; he must in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs, in his own language, repeat what already so clearly appears by the very terms of the appended contract. These paragraphs should have been wholly omitted.

Instead of declaring in the tenth paragraph that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, by parcel post or express, whichever it was, 52 mats of about three columns wide and copy from its Tomboy Tess Series (advertising matter), as it agreed to do under the agreement, the pleader avers the conclusion that the “plaintiff lived up to, performed and fulfilled every part, condition, and stipulation of the said written contract.”

And now, July 22, 1935, the statement of claim is stricken off and the plaintiff is allowed 30 days from this date to file a new or amended statement.

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

Hicks, P. J.,

Section 5 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, provides, inter alia, that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise and summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim but not inferences or conclusions of law.

The statement filed in this case is certainly anything but concise, is repetitious and prolix, and contains conclusions of law. The suit is on a written contract, attached to the statement of claim, in which the several responsibilities of the parties are fully set out. But the pleader is not satisfied with this; he must in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs, in his own language, repeat what already so clearly appears by the very terms of the appended contract. These paragraphs should have been wholly omitted.

Instead of declaring in the tenth paragraph that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, by parcel post or express, whichever it was, 52 mats of about three columns wide and copy from its Tomboy Tess Series (advertising matter), as it agreed to do under the agreement, the pleader avers the conclusion that the “plaintiff lived up to, performed and fulfilled every part, condition, and stipulation of the said written contract.”

And now, July 22, 1935, the statement of claim is stricken off and the plaintiff is allowed 30 days from this date to file a new or amended statement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Pa. D. & C. 395, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-scott-inc-v-hartenstine-pactcomplschuyl-1935.