Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.

285 A.2d 113, 445 Pa. 333, 1971 Pa. LEXIS 680
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 20, 1971
DocketAppeal, No. 129
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 285 A.2d 113 (Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., 285 A.2d 113, 445 Pa. 333, 1971 Pa. LEXIS 680 (Pa. 1971).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ms. Justice Roberts,

We are presented with the question of whether appellant’s bill in equity was the proper form of action. We affirm the Chancellor’s determination that an action at law was the proper form of action for appellant, but we modify the decree of dismissal so as to provide for the transfer of the matter to the law side as required by Rule 1509(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

This controversy comes to us from the sustaining of appellees’ preliminary objections and the dismissal of the complaint. It is settled that in an appeal from the upholding of preliminary objections by a defendant in the nature of a demurrer, every well pleaded material fact set forth in the complaint and every inference reasonably deducible therefrom is admitted for purposes of appeal. Mellon Square Garage, Inc. v. Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh, 442 Pa. 229, 275 A. 2d 654 (1971); Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 436 Pa. 279, 259 A. 2d 443 (1969); DiBelardino v. Lemmon Pharmacal Co., 416 Pa. 580, 208 A. 2d 283 (1965); Weber v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 415 Pa. 292, 203 A. 2d 554 (1964). The following pertinent “facts” can be inferred from the complaint. For ease of reference, we will set out a schematic diagram of the land and easement in question. The sketch is meant to serve only as a descriptive aid; it is not drawn to scale, nor is it meant to represent the precise relative location of the plots of land.

[336]*336

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

Related

Laughlin, K. v. Schnur, R.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
PA Energy Vision, LLC v. South Avis Realty, Inc.
120 A.3d 1008 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Recht v. City of Pittsburgh
545 A.2d 450 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Lebanon News Publishing Co. v. City of Lebanon
451 A.2d 266 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Kitchen Appliances Distributors, Inc.
27 Pa. D. & C.3d 91 (Somerset County Court of Common Pleas, 1981)
Monti v. City of Pittsburgh
364 A.2d 764 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Klemow v. Time Incorporated
352 A.2d 12 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Heller v. South Williamsport Borough
74 Pa. D. & C.2d 795 (Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, 1976)
Lutz v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.
71 Pa. D. & C.2d 595 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
Shaffer v. Dooley
308 A.2d 597 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Township of Lower Saucon v. Kuss
60 Pa. D. & C.2d 603 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
B. Axe Enterprises v. Northeastern Fire Insurance
285 A.2d 462 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.2d 113, 445 Pa. 333, 1971 Pa. LEXIS 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trimble-services-inc-v-franchise-realty-interstate-corp-pa-1971.