Appeals, Nos. 66 and 67, Jan. T., 1964, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Sept. T., 1959, Nos. 68 and 69, in cases of Esther Patton v. John D. Patton, William Joseph Derr, administrator of estate of George Derr, deceased, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; and William Joseph Derr, administrator of estate of Mary Derr, deceased, v. Same. Judgment in Patton (No. 66) reversed; judgment in Derr (No. 67) affirmed.
D. D. Dolbin, with him Joseph W. P. Burke, for appellant.
Leon H. Kline, with him Isadore E. Krasno, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE JONES
John D. Patton (Patton), is the named insured in an automobile liability policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Company (State Farm), the garnishee in both these proceedings. Patton's automobile, then being operated by George Derr (Derr), with Patton's permission, was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle and at the time, Patton's wife, Esther Patton, and Derr's wife, Mary Derr, passengers in the Patton automobile, sustained personal injuries.
Esther Patton and Mary Derr instituted separate trespass actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County against the operator of the other motor vehicle and, in each action, Patton and Derr were joined as additional defendants.*fn1 At trial, the
jury returned verdicts in each action against Patton and Derr and judgments in favor of Esther Patton and Mary Derr, respectively, were entered.
To enforce her judgment against Derr, Esther Patton issued an attachment execution against State Farm and, to enforce her judgment against Patton, Mary Derr issued an attachment execution against State Farm.*fn2 To the judgment holders' interrogatories State Farm filed answers; the judgment holders then demurred and moved for judgments on the pleadings. The court below sustained the demurrers and entered judgments on the pleadings against State Farm. From the entry of such judgments these two appeals have been taken.
One appeal (No. 66 January Term 1964) questions the right of the named insured's wife - a "member of the family of the [named] insured residing in the same household as the [named] insured" - , to recover damages for bodily injury, under the provisions of the insurance policy, from the additional insured. The other appeal (No. 67 January Term 1964) questions the right of the additional insured's wife - a "member of the family of the [additional] insured residing in the same household as the ...