Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1970, No. 2841, in case of Genro, Inc., a corporation t/a/d/b/a General Roofing Company v. International Chemical and Nuclear Corporation.
Richard C. Witt, with him Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, for appellant.
C. William Berger, with him Berger & Kapetan, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. (Watkins, J., absent.) Opinion by Jacobs, J.
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 61]
This is an appeal from a lower court's order directing an interpleader, pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. No. 2306.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff Genro, Inc., filed a complaint in assumpsit against defendant International Chemical and Nuclear Corporation in December of 1969. The complaint alleged that defendant had failed to pay for certain repairs which plaintiff made on a building in accordance with three contracts; it also alleged that defendant had consumed a number of hours of plaintiff's time by failing to make available on schedule the premises to be repaired. Damages were requested in the amount of $12,072.91, of which $11,756.25 was attributed to the price of repairs made and $316.66 to the value of time consumed by the delay.
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 62]
On February 28, 1972, defendant petitioned for interpleader as provided for in Pa. R. C. P. Nos. 2301-19 and 2324-25. It alleged that one W. W. Alberts was asserting a claim inconsistent with*fn1 that of the plaintiff.*fn2 Although it appears that the claims of W. W. Alberts and of the plaintiff were not inconsistent as to all of their items, this fact would not render interpleader, as provided for in the Rules of Civil Procedure, inappropriate.*fn3 The interpleader petition requested that the court order the plaintiff, Genro, Inc.,
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 63]
and the claimant, W. W. Alberts, to interplead. The court, acceding to the petition, ordered that W. W. Alberts be added to the record as a party plaintiff.*fn4
The basis for defendant's assertion that the claim of the plaintiff and that of the claimant were adverse, or mutually inconsistent, with respect to defendant's liability, was that it would have been impossible for plaintiff's repairs to have been properly made (and thus for its claim to be valid) and at the same time for claimant to have suffered all the damage it alleged (and thus for its claim to be valid). The damage alleged by the claimant included loss incurred by virtue of improper repairs made on the building, which claimant owned, during defendant's leasehold.*fn5 In its answer to the petition for interpleader, plaintiff admitted that claims against the defendant by the claimant were "inconsistent with ...