Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum
This text of 61 Pa. Super. 93 (Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
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]*95rated 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 Pa. Super. 93, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scranton-private-hospital-v-caum-pasuperct-1915.