City of Bethlehem v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co.

Northampton County Court of Common Pleas

City of Bethlehem v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co.

7 Pa. D. & C. 632, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 197

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

DecidedNovember 9, 1925

DocketNo. 38

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C. 632 (City of Bethlehem v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Bethlehem v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 7 Pa. D. & C. 632, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 197 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stewart, P. J.,

This is a rule for judgment upon a statutory demurrer. Plaintiff sued in trespass for the recovery of damages alleged to have been occasioned by a collision between plaintiff’s fire-engine and defendant’s trolley-car. After setting forth the facts, plaintiff’s seventh paragraph of the statement is as follows: “That the damage done to the said fire-engine by the careless and negligent operation of said trolley-car amounted to the sum of Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars and Fifty Cents ($5,240.50) paid by the City of Bethlehem to repair the damage so done as aforesaid.” In the affidavit of defence the defendant averred in the seventh paragraph as follows: “The defendant specifically raises the question of law that, under the practice, the plaintiff’s statement is insufficient and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages in any amount under said statement.” Upon the argument, it was stated that the plaintiff was not seeking to recover any other damages than general damages, and that repairs were to be deemed “general damages.” Under the authorities as we have examined them in Waldbiesser v. Travaglini, 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 31, the statement in suit is not specific. See, also, on the general subject, the preceding case, Bricker and Hochman v. Kline, and Csapo v. Du Bois, 20 Northamp. Co. Repr. 1. As stated in the former case, quoting from Long v. McAllister, 275 Pa. 34, the correct practice would require in the present case a rule for a more specific statement. We had the same question in Wilson & Co. v. Kessler, 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 290, where there was also a demurrer, but we permitted a more specific statement to be filed. We shall follow the same practice here.

And now, Nov. 9, 1925, the plaintiff is permitted to file an amended statement within fifteen days from date. In default thereof, the prothonotary shall enter judgment for the defendant upon its demurrer.

From Henry D. Maxwell, Easton, Pa.

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

Stewart, P. J.,

This is a rule for judgment upon a statutory demurrer. Plaintiff sued in trespass for the recovery of damages alleged to have been occasioned by a collision between plaintiff’s fire-engine and defendant’s trolley-car. After setting forth the facts, plaintiff’s seventh paragraph of the statement is as follows: “That the damage done to the said fire-engine by the careless and negligent operation of said trolley-car amounted to the sum of Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars and Fifty Cents ($5,240.50) paid by the City of Bethlehem to repair the damage so done as aforesaid.” In the affidavit of defence the defendant averred in the seventh paragraph as follows: “The defendant specifically raises the question of law that, under the practice, the plaintiff’s statement is insufficient and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages in any amount under said statement.” Upon the argument, it was stated that the plaintiff was not seeking to recover any other damages than general damages, and that repairs were to be deemed “general damages.” Under the authorities as we have examined them in Waldbiesser v. Travaglini, 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 31, the statement in suit is not specific. See, also, on the general subject, the preceding case, Bricker and Hochman v. Kline, and Csapo v. Du Bois, 20 Northamp. Co. Repr. 1. As stated in the former case, quoting from Long v. McAllister, 275 Pa. 34, the correct practice would require in the present case a rule for a more specific statement. We had the same question in Wilson & Co. v. Kessler, 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 290, where there was also a demurrer, but we permitted a more specific statement to be filed. We shall follow the same practice here.

And now, Nov. 9, 1925, the plaintiff is permitted to file an amended statement within fifteen days from date. In default thereof, the prothonotary shall enter judgment for the defendant upon its demurrer.

From Henry D. Maxwell, Easton, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C. 632, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-bethlehem-v-lehigh-valley-transit-co-pactcomplnortha-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack