Fratkin v. Wolfe

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Fratkin v. Wolfe

78 Pa. D. & C. 427, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 320

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County

DecidedMarch 6, 1952

Docketno. 426

StatusPublished

This text of 78 Pa. D. & C. 427 (Fratkin v. Wolfe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fratkin v. Wolfe, 78 Pa. D. & C. 427, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoban, P. J.,

— In this action on a book account for goods sold and delivered plaintiff filed a petition for discovery under Pa. R. C. P. 4007. Apparently plaintiff wants to interrogate defendants to discover whether the consignees of the goods sold and delivered at the order and by the direction of defendants are agents or subsidiaries of defendants, to identify the owners and officers of such consignees, to verify delivery, to ascertain the circumstances of payment by defendants for containers of the goods so delivered, and to ascertain other matters “incidental and germane to the issues raised by the pleadings”.

But as we see the issues raised by the pleadings, the only question is whether or not these defendants de[428]*428livered certain materials to plaintiff for processing, whether plaintiff processed them at defendants’ order, whether or not plaintiff delivered them to consignees as directed by defendants, and whether or not the prices for the work were as agreed to between plaintiff and defendants. All of these matters are obviously within the knowledge of plaintiff, and while the intent of the rule is to permit plaintiff to discover matters which are necessary either to the preparation of his pleading or to the presentation of a prima facie case, the rule certainly is not intended to permit a plaintiff to go on an exploration or to provide ammunition against an anticipated defense.

The petition asks for a discovery of matters which either are not relevant and material to the subject matter of the pending action as disclosed by the complaint, or which are not necessary to enable plaintiff to prove a prima facie claim. See Pa. R. C. P. 4011.

Now, March 6, 1952, the motion to permit plaintiff to take oral depositions for the purpose of discovery from defendants is denied, and the petition, therefore, is directed to be stricken from the record.

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

Hoban, P. J.,

— In this action on a book account for goods sold and delivered plaintiff filed a petition for discovery under Pa. R. C. P. 4007. Apparently plaintiff wants to interrogate defendants to discover whether the consignees of the goods sold and delivered at the order and by the direction of defendants are agents or subsidiaries of defendants, to identify the owners and officers of such consignees, to verify delivery, to ascertain the circumstances of payment by defendants for containers of the goods so delivered, and to ascertain other matters “incidental and germane to the issues raised by the pleadings”.

But as we see the issues raised by the pleadings, the only question is whether or not these defendants de[428]*428livered certain materials to plaintiff for processing, whether plaintiff processed them at defendants’ order, whether or not plaintiff delivered them to consignees as directed by defendants, and whether or not the prices for the work were as agreed to between plaintiff and defendants. All of these matters are obviously within the knowledge of plaintiff, and while the intent of the rule is to permit plaintiff to discover matters which are necessary either to the preparation of his pleading or to the presentation of a prima facie case, the rule certainly is not intended to permit a plaintiff to go on an exploration or to provide ammunition against an anticipated defense.

The petition asks for a discovery of matters which either are not relevant and material to the subject matter of the pending action as disclosed by the complaint, or which are not necessary to enable plaintiff to prove a prima facie claim. See Pa. R. C. P. 4011.

Now, March 6, 1952, the motion to permit plaintiff to take oral depositions for the purpose of discovery from defendants is denied, and the petition, therefore, is directed to be stricken from the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Pa. D. & C. 427, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fratkin-v-wolfe-pactcompllackaw-1952.