Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MAURICE SLATER AND MARCY SLATER T/A MAURSAM AND COMPANY v. SAMUEL GOLDBERG AND HARVEY GOLDBERG AND FABRIC PLACE SCRANTON (05/11/79)

decided: May 11, 1979.

MAURICE SLATER AND MARCY SLATER T/A MAURSAM AND COMPANY
v.
SAMUEL GOLDBERG AND HARVEY GOLDBERG AND FABRIC PLACE OF SCRANTON, INC. APPEAL OF SAMUEL GOLDBERG AND HARVEY GOLDBERG



No. 1722 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Order entered May 11, 1978, of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division -- Law Division, at No. 721 May Term, 1977, In Assumpsit.

COUNSEL

Richard M. Goldberg, Hourigan, Kluger & Spohrer Associates, Wilkes-Barre, for appellants.

Robert A. Cecchini and Ernest D. Preate, Sr. of Levy, Preate & Purcell, Scranton, for appellees.

Van der Voort, Wieand and Lipez, JJ.

Author: Wieand

[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 53]

Samuel Goldberg and Harvey Goldberg, appellants, contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their preliminary objections raising questions of jurisdiction. We disagree and affirm.

Maurice Slater and Marcy Slater, t/a Maursam and Company, appellees herein, commenced an action in assumpsit for rent against Samuel Goldberg, Harvey Goldberg, and Fabric Place of Scranton, Inc. The claim was based on a lease for premises located in a shopping center at Archbald,

[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 54]

Lackawanna County. The lease had been executed by the Goldbergs individually and subsequently assigned to Fabric Place, their wholly owned corporation. The complaint was served on the individual and corporate defendants by a deputy sheriff of Lackawanna County who handed copies thereof to "Regina Nalevanko, Manager and the Person in Charge of the office at the time being of said three defendants." The office in which service was effected was a part of the demised premises. The individual defendants filed preliminary objections, contending that service upon them had been defective. Although conceding that their corporation was doing business on the premises where service was made, they contended that they were non-residents and not amenable to service in Lackawanna County. The trial court dismissed their preliminary objections, and the individual defendants appealed.

Pa.R.C.P. No. 1009(b)(2)(iii) authorizes personal service to be made upon an individual "at any office or usual place of business of the defendant to his agent or to the person for the time being in charge thereof." Pa.R.C.P. No. 2079 refers specifically to non-resident individuals doing business in Pennsylvania and permits service to be made in the following manner:

"If an action of the class specified in Rule 2077(a)(2) is commenced in the county in which the cause of action arose or in a county in which he is engaged in business, process may be served upon the defendant personally or by having the sheriff of the county in which the action is commenced, or by having a duly deputized sheriff, hand a true and attested copy of the process at any office or usual place of business of the defendant to the agent, clerk or person for the time being in charge thereof."

The reference to an "office or usual place of business of the defendant" requires that the defendant have "more proprietary responsibility and control over the business than that possessed by the average employee." Pincus v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.