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.

BADER v. HIGHWAY TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO. 107 ET AL. (03/20/69)

decided: March 20, 1969.

BADER, APPELLANT,
v.
HIGHWAY TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO. 107 ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeals from order of County Court of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1967, No. 2940E, in case of John Merwin Bader v. Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America et al.

COUNSEL

James J. Wilson, with him F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr. and Joseph M. Smith, for appellant.

John Mattioni, with him Mattioni, Mattioni & Mattioni, for appellee.

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

Author: Hoffman

[ 214 Pa. Super. Page 123]

This is an appeal from the entrance of summary judgment for appellee under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.

[ 214 Pa. Super. Page 124]

Appellant maintains that summary judgment was wrongfully entered, since the pleadings and affidavits disclose that there are genuine issues as to material facts which can only be determined by a jury.

Specifically, Bader, the appellee, an attorney, filed a Complaint in Assumpsit alleging that he was engaged by appellant, a labor union, to represent it in a matter in the United States District Court, District of Delaware. By way of an attached bill for services, which is incorporated into the pleading, it was also alleged that these services were competently and fully performed, and that appellant has refused to pay the $2500 bill.

Appellant, in its answer demanded proof that appellee had been retained by it. Additionally, it filed a cross complaint impleading Marshall J. Seidman, a Philadelphia attorney, alleging that he alone was liable for the bill rendered by appellee, because appellee's complaint indicated that he had been retained by Seidman.

Seidman filed an answer denying that he was liable to appellee.

Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment together with a supporting affidavit of Seidman. These pleadings alleged that appellant, through its secretary-treasurer, the chief executive officer, hired appellee who served as counsel in the Federal Court matter.

Appellant's answer did not deny appellee's averment that he was retained by the secretary-treasurer on the recommendation of the union's counsel, Seidman. It only alleged that the Executive Board of the Union is empowered by the union by-laws to employ an ...


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.