Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Corlies, 8 Phila. 450, 3 Brewst. 575, 26 L.I. 397 (Quar. Sess. 1869).
Plaintiff has failed to allege that the defendants, or their agents, servants, or employes committed any overt act within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in furtherance of the purposes of the alleged conspiracies. Paragraph 12 of the complaint does not allege that the defendants or their agents, servants, or employes stole the tractor-trailer and beef. It does not allege that this theft constituted an overt act in furtherance of any conspiracy. It does not allege that a co-conspirator of defendants committed the theft.
C. Paragraph 15 of the complaint alleges that on or about December 25, 1971 the defendants received into their possession the aforesaid beef and tractor-trailer. However, there is no allegation that this receipt was an act in furtherance of any conspiracy, nor is there an allegation that this receipt took place within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Moreover, we note defendant Zablotsky's uncontroverted affidavit claiming that he had not been in Pennsylvania at any time during the years 1971 and 1972, that Shop-Rite Durable Super Market has no employes in Pennsylvania, and that none of the other defendants in this action has ever been an agent, servant, or employe of the affiant or of Shop-Rite Durable Super Market, Inc.
Since the complaint fails to allege that either or both of the moving defendants, or their agents, servants, or employes, committed a tortious action within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, service of process upon defendants Zablotsky and Shop-Rite Durable Super Market, Inc. was not within the provisions of 12 P.S. § 341. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendants Zablotsky and Shop-Rite Durable Super Market, Inc., and defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted. Richardson v. Ingram Corp., 374 F.2d 502, 503 (C.A. 3, 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 866, 88 S. Ct. 134, 19 L. Ed. 2d 139 (1967).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.