Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, June T., 1969, No. 4883, in case of William Cannon v. Avco Corporation.
Keith S. Erbstein, with him Beasley, Hewson, Casey, Kraft & Colleran, for appellant.
G. Wayne Renneisen, with him Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. (Spaulding, J., absent.) Opinion by Watkins, P. J.
[ 227 Pa. Super. Page 420]
This is an appeal from a judgment of non pros. entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia in a trespass action against the appellant-plaintiff, William Cannon and in favor of the appellee-defendant, Avco Corporation.
The plaintiff claims to have suffered personal injuries as the result of an industrial accident on June 18, 1968. On June 19, 1969, plaintiff filed his complaint in trespass. The Sheriff's return indicated that the defendant could not be found. The complaint was reinstated on January 8, 1970, and on November 4, 1971. On November 9, 1971, a petition to allow service on the Secretary of the Commonwealth was filed. Again, service was not made. On April 26, 1972, and on June 6, 1972, the complaint was reinstated. Service was finally made on a representative of the defendant-corporation on June 19, 1972. Running through this record is an indication that an inference might be drawn that defendant-corporation was evading service of process.
The defendant then filed preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint contending that the service of the complaint had been untimely and that the corporation
[ 227 Pa. Super. Page 421]
had been materially prejudiced by the delay. The plaintiff filed an answer and supporting memorandum. The defendant also filed a supporting memorandum. The defendant requested oral argument, but the court below granted a judgment of non pros. without permitting oral argument on the ground of unreasonable delay.
The question as to whether a non pros. should have been granted because of plaintiff's failure to prosecute his action within a reasonable period of time is discretionary with the trial court and the exercise of such discretion can be disturbed on appeal only if an abuse thereof exists. Gallagher v. Jewish Hospital Association, 425 Pa. 112, 228 A.2d 732 (1967). Thus, the issue in this appeal is whether the court abused its discretion.
A review of the record indicates that the plaintiff has complied in all respects with Rule 1007 and Rule 1010 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in instituting the action by way of a complaint and in keeping the action alive by reinstating the complaint within the proper time periods. The court below properly disregarded the defendant's contention that plaintiff's complaint expired because the Sheriff could not effectuate service within thirty days after the original issuance of the complaint since the failure to secure service does not affect the plaintiff's right to reinstate the complaint within the statutory period and the record clearly shows that this was done.
However, the court below granted the non pros. on the ground of the delay of three years in effectuating service was so unreasonable and prejudicial to the ...