Dolphin v. Dean

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Dolphin v. Dean

29 Pa. D. & C.2d 561, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 445

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 10, 1963

Docketno. 1493

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 Pa. D. & C.2d 561 (Dolphin v. Dean) 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

Dolphin v. Dean, 29 Pa. D. & C.2d 561, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 445 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Reimel, J.,

In the instant case, plaintiff is suing two defendants. One of the defendants alleges that the second defendant is jointly liable or primarily liable, and the problem at issue is whether this defendant can so allege under the heading new matter.

If plaintiff was suing only one of the two defendants, the defendant sued could accomplish this by joining the second defendant as an additional defendant. Even though the rules do not specifically authorize the pro[562]*562cedure employed in the instant case, there appears to be no reason for not permitting the defendant to accomplish the same result whether sued individually or sued in conjunction with a second defendant. In fact, this procedure was authorized in Berlo Vending Company v. Sealright Company, Inc., 88 D. & C. 401 (1954), which this court hereby follows.

There is also a preliminary objection requesting that the new matter be more specifically pleaded, but since the suit is in the nature of an equity accounting, it is the finding of the court that the pleading in question is sufficiently specific.

Therefore, the court enters the following

Order

And now, April 10, 1963, the preliminary objections to new matter are dismissed.

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

Reimel, J.,

In the instant case, plaintiff is suing two defendants. One of the defendants alleges that the second defendant is jointly liable or primarily liable, and the problem at issue is whether this defendant can so allege under the heading new matter.

If plaintiff was suing only one of the two defendants, the defendant sued could accomplish this by joining the second defendant as an additional defendant. Even though the rules do not specifically authorize the pro[562]*562cedure employed in the instant case, there appears to be no reason for not permitting the defendant to accomplish the same result whether sued individually or sued in conjunction with a second defendant. In fact, this procedure was authorized in Berlo Vending Company v. Sealright Company, Inc., 88 D. & C. 401 (1954), which this court hereby follows.

There is also a preliminary objection requesting that the new matter be more specifically pleaded, but since the suit is in the nature of an equity accounting, it is the finding of the court that the pleading in question is sufficiently specific.

Therefore, the court enters the following

Order

And now, April 10, 1963, the preliminary objections to new matter are dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Pa. D. & C.2d 561, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolphin-v-dean-pactcomplphilad-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack