Scott v. Pierucci

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas

Scott v. Pierucci

72 Pa. D. & C. 453, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 210

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County

DecidedMarch 3, 1950

Docketno. 952

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Pa. D. & C. 453 (Scott v. Pierucci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. Pierucci, 72 Pa. D. & C. 453, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 210 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Bretherick, J.,

This case is before us on defendant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint in assumpsit.

Defendant’s sole argument on the demurrer is based on the contention that the contract is illegal, because the consideration for his promise involves a concealing or compounding of a crime or alleged crime. See A. L. I. Restatement of the Law of Contracts, §548.

The defense of illegality cannot be raised by preliminary objections. Such defense “shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading ‘New Matter’ ”: Pa. R. C. P. 1030. “The defendant will first plead his answer to the complaint, and then, under a separate heading, will plead the affirmative defenses”: Goodrich-Amram, p. 135.

The preliminary objections, therefore, must be overruled, and defendant directed to plead over: Pa. R. C. P. 1028(d).

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

Bretherick, J.,

This case is before us on defendant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint in assumpsit.

Defendant’s sole argument on the demurrer is based on the contention that the contract is illegal, because the consideration for his promise involves a concealing or compounding of a crime or alleged crime. See A. L. I. Restatement of the Law of Contracts, §548.

The defense of illegality cannot be raised by preliminary objections. Such defense “shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading ‘New Matter’ ”: Pa. R. C. P. 1030. “The defendant will first plead his answer to the complaint, and then, under a separate heading, will plead the affirmative defenses”: Goodrich-Amram, p. 135.

The preliminary objections, therefore, must be overruled, and defendant directed to plead over: Pa. R. C. P. 1028(d).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Pa. D. & C. 453, 1950 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-pierucci-pactcompldelawa-1950.