Smith Atwell v. Billigen Home Improvements, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to strike because of lack of conformity to law and in the nature of a motion raising the defense of plaintiffs lack of capacity to sue raise the question of plaintiffs failure to register under the Fictitious Names Act. Suit was instituted before District Justice Lakas by “Smith Atwell, Atwell & Son”, against defendant to recover the balance due on electrical work. Defendant appealed the judgment of the district justice and plaintiffs complaint was filed, captioned “Smith Atwell, II” v. defendant. The complaint describes plaintiff as an individual.
The preliminary objections aver that plaintiff filed the action under the fictitious name of Atwell & Son and that plaintiff failed to register prior to the institution of suit. Plaintiffs answer to the preliminary objections merely states that defendant’s allegations are not proper grounds for preliminary objections and that plaintiff is not filing a claim as a fictitious person. This answer is not adequate to raise a factual issue. Therefore, the averment in the preliminary objection must be taken as admitted. We think that the name Atwell & Son implies that plaintiff was conducting a business with his son as a co-owner.
We conclude that the definitions contained in the Fictitious Names Act were intended to resolve the uncertainty created by the failure to define a fictitious name in the prior act (54 P.S. 28.1 et seq.). Examples of the uncertainty are contained in Bower v. Marcelli, 3 D.&C. 3d 787 (1975) and Michener v. Wagner & Son, 11 D.&C. 2d 444 (1957). In Bower, the court held that “Bower’s Home Improvements” was not a fictitious name within the meaning of the act. In Michener, the court held that “Anton Wagner & Son” was a fictitious name within the meaning of the act.
We think it is clear under the new act that “Atwell & Son” is a fictitious name unless that name is a “proper name”. “Proper” is defined in Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary as “belonging to one: own”; “referring to one individual only”. Therefore, Atwell & Son is not a proper name.
It remains to be determined whether or not plaintiff ’s failure to register under the Fictitious Names Act can be raised by preliminary objection. As hereinabove mentioned, defendant raised a ques
Under the language of section 331(a) hereinabove quoted, the action should not be dismissed until after plaintiff has been given the opportunity to comply with the act. An appropriate order will be entered.
ORDER
And now, this July 12, 1984, defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint are sustained. Leave is granted to plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging compliance with the Fictitious Names Act within 60 days of the date of this order. Upon failure to file such amended complaint, the complaint is to be dismissed. All proceedings are stayed meanwhile.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.