Joyce v. Dulaney

Washington County Court of Common Pleas

Joyce v. Dulaney

78 Pa. D. & C. 381, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 157

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County

DecidedJune 25, 1951

Docketno. 281

StatusPublished

This text of 78 Pa. D. & C. 381 (Joyce v. Dulaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joyce v. Dulaney, 78 Pa. D. & C. 381, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 157 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

— The two plaintiffs brought an action of trespass against defendant. The complaint filed appears to be the complaint of one of the plaintiffs, without indicating which one, and in some parts seems to claim damages on behalf of each, and finally claims damages in a lump sum for both.

Under Pa. R. C. P. 2229 it is permissible for plaintiffs to join to secure relief jointly, severally, or separately, or in the alternative with respect to the one accident averred. If they do so, then they must comply with Pa. R. C. P. 1020(6), which requires any special damages and the demand for relief of each plaintiff to be set forth in a separate count preceded by the appropriate heading.

From an examination of the complaint filed in this case, it is clear that the procedural rules have not been complied with.

And now, June 25, 1951, the preliminary objections filed by defendant are sustained, and it is ordered that the complaint in trespass heretofore filed in this action be stricken from the record, with leave to plaintiffs to filed a proper complaint on or before the fourth Monday of August next.

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

Per Curiam,

— The two plaintiffs brought an action of trespass against defendant. The complaint filed appears to be the complaint of one of the plaintiffs, without indicating which one, and in some parts seems to claim damages on behalf of each, and finally claims damages in a lump sum for both.

Under Pa. R. C. P. 2229 it is permissible for plaintiffs to join to secure relief jointly, severally, or separately, or in the alternative with respect to the one accident averred. If they do so, then they must comply with Pa. R. C. P. 1020(6), which requires any special damages and the demand for relief of each plaintiff to be set forth in a separate count preceded by the appropriate heading.

From an examination of the complaint filed in this case, it is clear that the procedural rules have not been complied with.

And now, June 25, 1951, the preliminary objections filed by defendant are sustained, and it is ordered that the complaint in trespass heretofore filed in this action be stricken from the record, with leave to plaintiffs to filed a proper complaint on or before the fourth Monday of August next.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Pa. D. & C. 381, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-v-dulaney-pactcomplwashin-1951.