Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

LOCAL UNION 249 v. W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER COMPANY (12/12/68)

decided: December 12, 1968.

LOCAL UNION 249
v.
W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER COMPANY, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of County Court of Allegheny County, No. 366 of 1967, in case of General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union 249 v. W. J. Dillner Transfer Company.

COUNSEL

John L. Laubach, Jr., with him Kenney, Stevens, Clark & Semple, for appellant.

Ben Paul Jubelirer, for appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Hannum, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Hoffman

[ 213 Pa. Super. Page 439]

This is an appeal from the dismissal by the County Court of Allegheny County of preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint.

[ 213 Pa. Super. Page 440]

The General Teamster, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union 249 (hereinafter referred to as Union) on behalf of "all warehousemen and stevedores in the employ" of W. J. Dillner Company (hereinafter referred to as Company) filed in the County Court of Allegheny County an action in assumpsit against the Company.*fn1 The complaint alleged that the Company, in breach of its collective bargaining agreement with the union, "failed to pay the appropriate contract hourly rate, minimum guaranty and overtime pay since March 1, 1961 to the present time."

The Company filed preliminary objections including an allegation that the lower court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The objections were dismissed. This appeal followed.

The Company on appeal maintains that the County Court of Allegheny County does not have subject matter jurisdiction because this action properly lies in equity over which the County Court has no jurisdiction. Act of May 5, 1911, P. L. 198, § 6, 17 P.S. § 626, as amended. Kemnitzer v. Kemnitzer, 335 Pa. 105, 6 A.2d 571 (1939). In support of its position, the Company alleges that this case presents (1) a spurious class action which may only be brought in equity and (2) is in the nature of an equitable accounting.

We need not reach the merits of this argument, however, because the order of the County Court was interlocutory and may not be appealed prior to a final determination of the case by that court.

The Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, § 1, 12 P.S. § 672, provides that a preliminary determination by a court of its jurisdiction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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