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.

SMALL v. SATUREN ET AL. (04/23/69)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: April 23, 1969.

SMALL
v.
SATUREN ET AL., APPELLANTS

Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Nov. T., 1967, No. 1487, in case of Albert Small et ux. v. David Saturen et al.

COUNSEL

J. A. Luchsinger, with him Frank M. Jakobowski, for appellant.

J. Leon Rabben, for appellees.

Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Cohen. Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Cohen

[ 434 Pa. Page 120]

Plaintiffs-appellees instituted an action in trespass against the defendants in Philadelphia County. The cause of action arose as a result of a motor vehicle accident in Monroe County.

Plaintiffs are residents of Philadelphia County. Defendant Saturen is a resident of Philadelphia County and defendant Schouppe (appellant) is a resident of Monroe County. Deputized service was made upon defendant Schouppe in Monroe County. Schouppe filed preliminary objections contending that the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is without jurisdiction over him since Pa. R. C. P. 1043*fn1 deputized service is permitted only from the county in which the accident occurred. Defendants' preliminary objections were dismissed and this appeal followed.

The lower court properly held that Rule 1043 does not provide the sole situation where deputized service is permitted, and that deputized service is also proper under Rules 1006(c)*fn2 and 1009(e).*fn3 Both Rules

[ 434 Pa. Page 1211006]

(c) and 1009(e) are assumpsit rules but are incorporated into the trespass rules by Rule 1041.*fn4 The 1967 amendments to the Rules, namely, 1006(c) and 1009(e), were adopted specifically to apply to the problem where, as here, two or more individual defendants residing in different counties are sued jointly and severally. Under the prior practice, separate actions had to be brought in each of the counties so that each individual defendant could be properly served. This requirement of multiple actions was cumbersome. Under the amendments to the Rules, where defendants residing in separate counties jointly or jointly and severally incur an obligation or commit a tort, a single action can be brought against all defendants either in the county of the cause, or in a county in which one of the defendants may be served. Rule 1006(a).*fn5 Rule 1009(e) makes further provision for any necessary deputized service. Thus, by a single action litigants are enabled to adjudicate the liability of all defendants who reside anywhere within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.


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.