Bylock v. Colonial Ice Cream Co.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Bylock v. Colonial Ice Cream Co.

9 Pa. D. & C. 460, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 76

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 19, 1927

DocketNo. 6473

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Pa. D. & C. 460 (Bylock v. Colonial Ice Cream Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bylock v. Colonial Ice Cream Co., 9 Pa. D. & C. 460, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 76 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, P. J.,

Suit was instituted to recover damages for an assault upon plaintiff by an employee of defendant.

A statement of claim was filed, to which defendant filed an affidavit of defence raising questions of law. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, from which the objectionable features to which exception was taken by the affidavit of defence were removed.

The amended statement of claim charges negligence on the part of defendant in knowingly employing “a brutal, quarrelsome, pugnacious and impolite person likely to assault and strike any person at any time without any provocation whatsoever,” and alleges that, after notice of the disposition of this employee and a request sent by plaintiff to defendant that he should not be permitted to deliver merchandise to plaintiff, defendant persisted in sending him to plaintiff’s place of business, where he violently assaulted plaintiff.

And now, to wit, April 19, 1927, the affidavit of defence raising questions of law is not sustained; defendant is given fifteen days to file a defence to averments of fact in statement of claim.

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

Martin, P. J.,

Suit was instituted to recover damages for an assault upon plaintiff by an employee of defendant.

A statement of claim was filed, to which defendant filed an affidavit of defence raising questions of law. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, from which the objectionable features to which exception was taken by the affidavit of defence were removed.

The amended statement of claim charges negligence on the part of defendant in knowingly employing “a brutal, quarrelsome, pugnacious and impolite person likely to assault and strike any person at any time without any provocation whatsoever,” and alleges that, after notice of the disposition of this employee and a request sent by plaintiff to defendant that he should not be permitted to deliver merchandise to plaintiff, defendant persisted in sending him to plaintiff’s place of business, where he violently assaulted plaintiff.

And now, to wit, April 19, 1927, the affidavit of defence raising questions of law is not sustained; defendant is given fifteen days to file a defence to averments of fact in statement of claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Pa. D. & C. 460, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bylock-v-colonial-ice-cream-co-pactcomplphilad-1927.