Appeals from order of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1970, No. 1964, in case of Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co. and A. Weinfeld & Son, Inc. v. Geriatric & Medical Centers, Inc., R & H Guarantee Corporation, Springdale Associates, Inc., Laurelview Equipment Company, Laurelview Convalescent Center.
Victor Wright, with him Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, for appellants.
Oscar Spivack, with him Irving Mazer, for appellees.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Manderino.
This appeal challenges (1) service of process upon the appellants, a parent corporation and three wholly-owned subsidiary corporations, who were defendants in a suit in equity in the trial court, and (2) venue as to only the three subsidiary corporations. Geriatric & Medical Centers, Inc. (Geriatric) is the parent corporation. The subsidiary corporations are Laurelview Convalescent Center (Convalescent), Laurelview Equipment Company (Equipment) and Springdale Associates, Inc. (Springdale). A fourth subsidiary corporation, R & H Guarantee Corporation, was also a defendant in the lower court but did not take an appeal and is, therefore, not before us.
The appellees are Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co., Inc. (Delaware) and A. Weinfeld & Son, Inc. (Weinfeld). Their suit in equity sought to recover payments for merchandise supplied to two of the subsidiaries
and requested various equitable relief claiming that the appellant corporations engaged in a scheme to defraud creditors, including the appellees.
Appellants filed preliminary objections challenging the service of the process as to all appellants and venue in Philadelphia County as to the three subsidiary corporations. The trial court overruled the preliminary objections, but directed that depositions be taken under Rule 1028(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and granted the appellants the right to refile their objections after the taking of depositions.
Depositions were taken by the appellants but not by the appellees. The trial court subsequently overruled appellants' challenge to service of process and venue.
We hold that the service of process was proper as to the parent corporation under Rule 2180(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure but not as to the three subsidiary corporations. In view of our holding, there is no need to consider whether venue as to the three subsidiaries was proper.
The parent corporation, Geriatric, is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania. The three subsidiary corporations are New Jersey corporations which are not registered to do business in Pennsylvania. The subsidiary corporations are involved with a nursing home located in New Jersey. One of the subsidiaries, Convalescent, operates the New Jersey nursing home. Another of the subsidiaries, Equipment, owns the personal property, equipment and fixtures used by Convalescent in the operation of its nursing home. The third subsidiary corporation, Springdale, owns the real estate in New Jersey upon which the ...