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.

WILLIAM MACE v. SENIOR ADULT ACTIVITIES CENTER MONTGOMERY COUNTY (12/01/80)

filed: December 1, 1980.

WILLIAM MACE, APPELLANT,
v.
SENIOR ADULT ACTIVITIES CENTER OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY



No. 292 October Term, 1978 Appeal from the Order of October 18, 1977 of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 76-13040 - Civil Action - Law.

COUNSEL

Paul Rauer, Norristown, for appellant.

Bernard V. DiGiacomo, Norristown, for appellee.

Jacobs, P. J., and Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, Spaeth and Hester, JJ. Price, J., concurs in the result. Cercone, P. J., files a concurring opinion. Jacobs, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 282 Pa. Super. Page 567]

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County by the plaintiff-appellant which dismissed his Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to Preliminary Objections filed by the defendant.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in assumpsit against the defendant, his former employer, alleging that he was improperly dismissed from his job contrary to the terms of his employment contract. The action was filed on August 17, 1976. After the defendant filed preliminary objections to the complaint, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 9, 1976. He also filed Amended Complaints on

[ 282 Pa. Super. Page 568]

September 27, 1976, January 24, 1977 and July 7, 1977. After each new complaint the defendant filed preliminary objections.

On October 14, 1977, defendant's preliminary objections to plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint were argued before the court below and on October 18, 1977, the court below issued an order sustaining defendant's preliminary objections and granting its motion to strike the Amended Complaint and dismiss same stating that "successive and continuous amendments to a complaint cannot be permitted to go on forever". On November 7, 1977, the plaintiff took this appeal.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court below erred when it ruled that his complaint was improper and further that the court erred when it dismissed his action rather than to permit him to file another Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint against the defendant alleges that:

Plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as its Executive Director pursuant to a written contract dated January 20, 1975; the said contract was in the form of a letter addressed to the plaintiff which informed him that he had been hired for the period January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975 at an annual salary of $20,000 payable on a pro-rata, bi-monthly basis, and that he could accept the offer of employment by signing and returning the letter which plaintiff did; plaintiff then served in that capacity for the year 1975; and that on December 9, 1975 the defendant's Board of Directors voted unanimously to renew plaintiff's 1975 employment contract for the year 1976 at a salary of $21,000 per annum; that plaintiff accepted said offer to renew his employment contract by continuing to serve as Executive Director and was paid as such from January 1, 1976 to April 9, 1976; and that plaintiff was fired as of April 9, 1976 by ...


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.