Appeal, No. 97, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1961, No. 4284, in case of C.E. Williams Co., to use of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Henry B. Pancoast Company and Watts Regulator Company. Order affirmed.
Roger B. Wood, with him Joseph R. Thompson, for appellant.
Samuel Moonblatt, with him Berk, Masino & Moonblatt, for appellee.
Richard D. Harburg, with him Swartz, Campbell & Henry, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES
This appeal challenges the propriety of the action of the court below in refusing to permit the withdrawal of the entry of a general appearance by counsel for an additional corporate defendant which seeks to attack the court's jurisdiction over its person.
The use-plaintiff, Maryland Casualty Company, in the name of C.E. Williams Company (Williams) instituted an assumpsit action against Henry B. Pancoast Company (Pancoast) alleging that Williams had purchased from Pancoast a certain "relief valve" for use in the construction of a public school, that this valve was impliedly warranted by Pancoast to be suitable for its intended use, that it was not suitable for such use and that, by reason of such unsuitability, certain damages from water occurred in the boiler room of a school constructed by Williams. Three months thereafter, Pancoast joined Watts Regulator Company (Watts) as an additional defendant, and, sometime thereafter, Pancoast filed and served a complaint against Watts alleging that the "relief valve" had been manufactured and sold by Watts to Pancoast, that, if the valve was defective as alleged by Williams, it was due to Watts' negligence, that Watts breached its warranty to Pancoast, that Watts was solely liable to Williams and that, in order to protect its right of contribution against Watts, Pancoast joined Watts as an additional defendant.
On November 9, 1961 - 17 days after service on Watts of Pancoast's complaint - Watts, by its counsel, entered a general appearance.
On November 14, 1961, Watts filed preliminary objections which, inter alia, questioned the court's jurisdiction over its person, i.e., that Watts, a foreign corporation not registered to do business in Pennsylvania, had not appointed an agent to receive service of process
in Pennsylvania and that service upon Watts was faulty in that it was made upon an employee of an independent ...