Shryock ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Shryock ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

4 Balt. C. Rep. 718

DecidedMay 21, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Balt. C. Rep. 718 (Shryock ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shryock ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 4 Balt. C. Rep. 718 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, J.

1. The defendant is entitled to the particulars of plaintiffs’ claim under counts 1 to 6, both inclusive, of the declaration, and plaintiffs are required to furnish the same within thirty days from the filing hereof.

2. A new eighth count of the declaration was filed by leave of Court. As framed it seems to me to allege a cause of action on the case for deceit. The facts set out might well under proper allegations aver the existence and breach of an express warranty. As framed, they purport to set up a cause of action sounding in tort. The joinder of this count with the first seven counts in contract obviously brings about a misjoinder, which requires the sustaining of the demurrer to the whole declaration. Leave to amend within thirty days is granted.

In order to expedite the progress of this case I may add that I think that the authority of Ruark and Compton to bind the defendant is not sufficiently [719]*719alleged. This decision applies to both the seventh and the new eighth count. I assume that the leave heretofore granted to substitute “contemplated abandoning’’ for “elected to abandon’’ in both of these counts will be exercised.

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

FRANK, J.

1. The defendant is entitled to the particulars of plaintiffs’ claim under counts 1 to 6, both inclusive, of the declaration, and plaintiffs are required to furnish the same within thirty days from the filing hereof.

2. A new eighth count of the declaration was filed by leave of Court. As framed it seems to me to allege a cause of action on the case for deceit. The facts set out might well under proper allegations aver the existence and breach of an express warranty. As framed, they purport to set up a cause of action sounding in tort. The joinder of this count with the first seven counts in contract obviously brings about a misjoinder, which requires the sustaining of the demurrer to the whole declaration. Leave to amend within thirty days is granted.

In order to expedite the progress of this case I may add that I think that the authority of Ruark and Compton to bind the defendant is not sufficiently [719]*719alleged. This decision applies to both the seventh and the new eighth count. I assume that the leave heretofore granted to substitute “contemplated abandoning’’ for “elected to abandon’’ in both of these counts will be exercised.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Balt. C. Rep. 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shryock-ex-rel-maryland-casualty-co-v-mayor-of-baltimore-pactcompl-1928.