Walter A. Rankin Corp. v. Williams

62 Pa. D. & C.2d 433, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 239
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County
DecidedMay 7, 1973
Docketno. 11925 of 1972
StatusPublished

This text of 62 Pa. D. & C.2d 433 (Walter A. Rankin Corp. v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walter A. Rankin Corp. v. Williams, 62 Pa. D. & C.2d 433, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 239 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973).

Opinion

deFURIA, J.,

Plaintiff in this equity action has filed preliminary objections to defendants’ counterclaim.

Defendants were previously employed by plaintiff. After leaving plaintiff’s employ, they formed their own business and engaged in business as a competitor

[434]*434of plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks an accounting and damages, alleging a conspiracy to steal its confidential property and trade secrets, and the use of those secrets to the injury of plaintiff.

Defendants filed answers. Two of the defendants filed counterclaims for sales commissions allegedly earned and due them.

The preliminary objections to the counterclaims are based on the contention that the subject matter of the counterclaim is unrelated to the subject matter of the principal action and, therefore, violates Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1510(a) governing pleadings in equity. The rule provides in part:

“A defendant may plead as a counterclaim only a cause of action, whether equitable or legal, which arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences from which the plaintiff’s cause of action arose.”

Since the claim and the counterclaims involve the relationship of employer-employe and the contacts which defendants-counterclaimants had with plaintiff’s customers, the counterclaims are sufficiently related to the “same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences from which plaintiff’s cause of action arose.” See Brenner v. Sukenik, 410 Pa. 324, 189 A. 2d 246 (1963).

Plaintiff further complains the counterclaims are vague. The counterclaims are alleged in language specific and clear enough to allow the plaintiff to reply. The objections must be dismissed.

ORDER

And now, this May 7, 1973, the preliminary objections filed herein are dismissed. Plaintiff is directed to file an answer to the counterclaims within 20 days of the delivery of this order.

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

Related

Brenner v. Sukenik
189 A.2d 246 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Pa. D. & C.2d 433, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-a-rankin-corp-v-williams-pactcompldelawa-1973.