Davidson v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Davidson v. Patterson

21 A.2d 30, 342 Pa. 466, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 551

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 13, 1941

DocketAppeal, 285

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.2d 30 (Davidson v. Patterson) 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

Davidson v. Patterson, 21 A.2d 30, 342 Pa. 466, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 551 (Pa. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff, Davidson, sued Patterson for injuries sustained while a guest passenger in the car of H. D. Brainard * which collided with the car of the defendant Patterson. Patterson filed an answer denying the negligence charged against him and then, pursuant to Buie 2252, 332 Pa. cxxiii, filed a petition to add Brainard as a defendant, averring that Davidson’s injuries resulted solely from Brainard’s negligence. The court allowed the petition to join Brainard. The additional defendant then filed an answer denying defendant Patterson’s averment. The plaintiff did not file a supplementary statement against the additional defendant pursuant to Buie 2258 (a) and therefore, in accord with Buie 2258 (c), was barred from recovery against him. After the period for filing a supplementary statement against the additional defendant had passed, he moved that he be dropped from the record. As the plaintiff elected not to proceed against him and, as the defendant Patterson had made no averments of liability of the additional defendant to him, there was no reason to keep him a party. As to amendment, see United Societies, etc., v. Klochak, 340 Pa. 159, 16 A. 2d 373. The court properly made the rule absolute. Compare Rau v. Manko, 341 Pa. 17, 17 A. 2d 422.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Brainard brought an action against Patterson, the subject of the appeal in Brainard v. Patterson, 342 Pa. 465. ■

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff, Davidson, sued Patterson for injuries sustained while a guest passenger in the car of H. D. Brainard * which collided with the car of the defendant Patterson. Patterson filed an answer denying the negligence charged against him and then, pursuant to Buie 2252, 332 Pa. cxxiii, filed a petition to add Brainard as a defendant, averring that Davidson’s injuries resulted solely from Brainard’s negligence. The court allowed the petition to join Brainard. The additional defendant then filed an answer denying defendant Patterson’s averment. The plaintiff did not file a supplementary statement against the additional defendant pursuant to Buie 2258 (a) and therefore, in accord with Buie 2258 (c), was barred from recovery against him. After the period for filing a supplementary statement against the additional defendant had passed, he moved that he be dropped from the record. As the plaintiff elected not to proceed against him and, as the defendant Patterson had made no averments of liability of the additional defendant to him, there was no reason to keep him a party. As to amendment, see United Societies, etc., v. Klochak, 340 Pa. 159, 16 A. 2d 373. The court properly made the rule absolute. Compare Rau v. Manko, 341 Pa. 17, 17 A. 2d 422.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Brainard brought an action against Patterson, the subject of the appeal in Brainard v. Patterson, 342 Pa. 465. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.2d 30, 342 Pa. 466, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-patterson-pa-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack