Sturiale v. Pennsylvania Burial Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Sturiale v. Pennsylvania Burial Co.

181 A. 605, 119 Pa. Super. 402, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 217

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 9, 1935

DocketAppeal, 202

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A. 605 (Sturiale v. Pennsylvania Burial Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Sturiale v. Pennsylvania Burial Co., 181 A. 605, 119 Pa. Super. 402, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 217 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

This judgment must be reversed.

There is no warrant in law for joining in one action of assumpsit three separate claims by three distinct persons growing out of three separate contracts with the same defendant, just because the plaintiffs happen to be father, mother and son: 1 Chitty on Pleading 11, 13; Boggs v. Curtin, 10 S. & B. 211. The action—that is, whether joint or several—must follow the form of the contract: Meason v. Kaine, 67 Pa. 126, 136.

The statutes directing that rights of action in trespass by husband and wife for personal injuries to the latter, 1 or by parents in their own right and on behalf of their child, for personal injuries to the child, 2 shall be redressed in one suit brought in their joint names have no application to actions in assumpsit on separate and distinct contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, each of them in his or her several right.

Judgment reversed, without prejudice to the rights of the several plaintiffs to bring separate actions on their respective contracts.

1

Aet of May 8, 1895, P. L. 54.

2

Act of May 12, 1897, P. L. 62.

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