Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum

Superior Court of Pennsylvania October 11, 1915

Scranton Private Hospital v. Caum, 61 Pa. Super. 93 (1915)

1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 274

Head, Kephart, Orlady, Rice, Trexler

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The court below refused to allow an amendment to a bill in equity, to change the name of the defendant from certain named individuals — “representing themselves and all others interested in a certain unincorpo*95rated association known as Scranton Railway Beneficial Association” to a corporation, viz: “Scranton Railway Beneficial Association.” It is apparent from the record that the suggested defendant, the corporation, was not in court, and that between the date of service of the bill on the original defendants, and that of the date of moving for that amendment, the statute of limitations had run against the plaintiff’s claim.

Following the rule declared in Wright v. Copper Co., 206 Pa. 274; Girardi v. Lumber Co., 232 Pa. 1; Tonge v. Item Publishing Co., 244 Pa. 417; White v. Fayette Auto Co., 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 532, the court below refused to allow the amendment.

The order so made is affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Equity — Equity practice — Amendment — Parties — Statute of limitations. An amendment to a hill in equity will not he allowed so as to change the name of the defendant from certain named individuals —“representing themselves and all others interested in a certain unincorporated association known as the Scranton Railway Beneficial Association,” to a corporation, viz: “Scranton Railway Beneficial Association,” where it is apparent from the record that the suggested defendant, the corporation, was not in court, and that between the date of the service of the hill on the original defendants, and that of the date of moving for the amendment, the statute of limitations had run against the plaintiff’s claim.