Legal Opinion
Thomas v. Hempt Bros.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Decided March 31, 1948No. 6PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Shughart, P. J.,
— Plaintiff filed complaint in assumpsit in the above-entitled case and defendants have raised preliminary objections in the nature of a rule to strike and a motion for more specific complaint under Rule 1017(6), (2) and (3) of Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motion to strike
The complaint in this case is signed by plaintiff personally but not by either of his counsel as required by Rule 1023(a) of Rules of Civil Procedure. This omission is assigned by defendants as their first reason in support of the motion to strike.
Rule 1023(a) provides as follows:
“Every pleading of a party…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- McKay v. BeattySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Keen v. Mid-Continent Petroleum CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1945
- Sirmon v. Cron & Gracey Drilling CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1942
- Cullum v. StevensDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1942
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thomas v. Hempt BrothersSupreme Court of the United States · 1953