Daley's Blue Line Transfer Co. v. Richards Sportswear Co.

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Daley's Blue Line Transfer Co. v. Richards Sportswear Co.

35 Pa. D. & C.2d 408, 1965 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

Docketno. 145

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Pa. D. & C.2d 408 (Daley's Blue Line Transfer Co. v. Richards Sportswear Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daley's Blue Line Transfer Co. v. Richards Sportswear Co., 35 Pa. D. & C.2d 408, 1965 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Wieand, J.,

This is an action to recover for the trucking of goods by the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant. The charges made, it is alleged, are authorized by and in accordance with rates established by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The defendant filed various preliminary objections to the complaint but has chosen to press only its motion to strike, which complains of plaintiff’s failure to attach to the complaint a copy of the schedule of rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

[409]*409We believe that this objection is not well taken. The manner of pleading an official document or official act is established by Pa. R. C. P. No. 1019 (d), which provides that it is sufficient to identify the same by reference and aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law: Eget v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 49 Luz. 147; Marnell v. Mount Carmel Joint School System and Joint School Committee, 24 Northumb. 210, 214.

No real purpose will be served by requiring the plaintiff to attach to the complaint a copy of this rate schedule. If the defendant wishes to deny that the rates charged are the rates authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it will have no difficulty in identifying or pleading the official document upon which it bases its defense. By requiring a specific denial both brevity of pleading and accuracy in framing issues will be assured. See Goodrich-Amram, §1019(d)-1.

Order

And now, March 30, 1965, the defendant’s preliminary objections are dismissed and it is directed to file an answer on the merits within twenty (20) days after service of a copy of this order upon its counsel.

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

Wieand, J.,

This is an action to recover for the trucking of goods by the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant. The charges made, it is alleged, are authorized by and in accordance with rates established by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The defendant filed various preliminary objections to the complaint but has chosen to press only its motion to strike, which complains of plaintiff’s failure to attach to the complaint a copy of the schedule of rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

[409]*409We believe that this objection is not well taken. The manner of pleading an official document or official act is established by Pa. R. C. P. No. 1019 (d), which provides that it is sufficient to identify the same by reference and aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law: Eget v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 49 Luz. 147; Marnell v. Mount Carmel Joint School System and Joint School Committee, 24 Northumb. 210, 214.

No real purpose will be served by requiring the plaintiff to attach to the complaint a copy of this rate schedule. If the defendant wishes to deny that the rates charged are the rates authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it will have no difficulty in identifying or pleading the official document upon which it bases its defense. By requiring a specific denial both brevity of pleading and accuracy in framing issues will be assured. See Goodrich-Amram, §1019(d)-1.

Order

And now, March 30, 1965, the defendant’s preliminary objections are dismissed and it is directed to file an answer on the merits within twenty (20) days after service of a copy of this order upon its counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Pa. D. & C.2d 408, 1965 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daleys-blue-line-transfer-co-v-richards-sportswear-co-pactcompllehigh-1965.