Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum

61 Pa. Super. 93, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 274
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 11, 1915·No. Appeal, No. 41·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The court below refused to allow an amendment to a bill in equity, to change the name of the defendant from certain named individuals — “representing themselves and all others interested in a certain unincorpo[95] rated association known as Scranton Railway Beneficial Association” to a corporation, viz: “Scranton Railway Beneficial Association.” It is apparent from the record that the suggested defendant, the corporation, was not in court, and that between the date of service of the bill on the original defendants, and that of the date of moving for that amendment, the statute of limitations had run against the plaintiff’s claim.

Following the rule declared in Wright v. Copper Co., 206 Pa. 274; Girardi v. Lumber Co., 232 Pa. 1; Tonge v. Item Publishing Co., 244 Pa. 417; White v. Fayette Auto Co., 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 532, the court below refused to allow the amendment.

The order so made is affirmed.

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

Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum, 61 Pa. Super. 93, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 274 (Pa. Ct. App. 1915).

61 Pa. Super. 93 (Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Duquesne Light Co.
545 A.2d 289 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Longstaff v. Tuthill
1 Pa. D. & C.4th 529 (Carbon County Court of Common Pleas, 1987)
Powell v. Sutliff
189 A.2d 864 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Nanstiel v. Gill
191 A. 197 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Wernick v. Pittsburgh Underwriters Agency
90 Pa. Super. 186 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)