Linko v. Devine

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Linko v. Devine

83 Pa. D. & C. 244, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 274

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County

DecidedFebruary 15, 1952

Docketno. 383

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Pa. D. & C. 244 (Linko v. Devine) 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

Linko v. Devine, 83 Pa. D. & C. 244, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 274 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoban, P. J.,

Plaintiffs claimed damages for personal injuries caused by the collapse of a defective chair in a restaurant owned and operated by defendant. In the preliminary objections defendant says there is no jurisdiction over him because he was not the owner nor operator; that one Beatrice Mildred Devine was the owner and operator and should have been joined as an indispensable party.

These objections simply state a denial of averments as to identity of the person by whom the material act was committed and the ownership and control of the instrumentality involved, which if not denied by a responsive pleading will be taken to be admitted: Pa. R. C. P. 1045(b). Preliminary objections do not constitute a “responsive” pleading. The complaint calls for an answer.

Now, February 15, 1952, the preliminary objections are dismissed, defendant to plead over in 20 days.

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

Hoban, P. J.,

Plaintiffs claimed damages for personal injuries caused by the collapse of a defective chair in a restaurant owned and operated by defendant. In the preliminary objections defendant says there is no jurisdiction over him because he was not the owner nor operator; that one Beatrice Mildred Devine was the owner and operator and should have been joined as an indispensable party.

These objections simply state a denial of averments as to identity of the person by whom the material act was committed and the ownership and control of the instrumentality involved, which if not denied by a responsive pleading will be taken to be admitted: Pa. R. C. P. 1045(b). Preliminary objections do not constitute a “responsive” pleading. The complaint calls for an answer.

Now, February 15, 1952, the preliminary objections are dismissed, defendant to plead over in 20 days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Pa. D. & C. 244, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linko-v-devine-pactcompllackaw-1952.