Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HUNT v. HUNT. (01/03/68)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: January 3, 1968.

HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
HUNT.

Appeal from decree of County Court of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1966, No. 15022-B, in case of Ida Hunt v. Samuel Hunt, Jr.

COUNSEL

William A. Goichman, for appellant.

Joseph V. Restifo, with him Benjamin Dresnin, for appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this concurring opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 428 Pa. Page 585]

Decree affirmed on the authority of Schwartz v. Tate, 419 Pa. 593, 215 A.2d 616 (1966).

Costs on appellant.

Disposition

Decree affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts:

I agree that the County Court has no jurisdiction in this litigation, but for a reason differing from that indicated by the majority's citation of Schwartz v. Tate, supra. The action below was instituted to enjoin a father from pressing any claim of his minor daughter in federal court arising from an automobile accident. Under the Act of July 12, 1913, P. L. 711, § 10, as amended, 17 P.S. § 693, a county court's equity jurisdiction is limited to actions where the amount in controversy does not exceed $5,000. For purposes of this litigation, the amount claimed in the federal action (an amount in excess of $10,000) controls. Nor is there any independent jurisdictional basis for the county court action since the proceeding below is not a custody action under the Act of July 12, 1913, P. L. 711, § 11, as amended, 17 P.S. § 694.

The dismissal below was correct for an additional, and perhaps more compelling, reason. This injunctive action was predicated upon a Pennsylvania rule of civil procedure,*fn* a matter not controlling in a federal court

[ 428 Pa. Page 586]

    


*fn* The basis of this injunctive request was Pa. R. C. P. 2228(b) which requires that, where the parents are separated (as here), both the minor's action for his injuries and the parents' derivative action be brought in one suit "by the parent having the custody of the child and the control of its services."


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.