Shapiro v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The writ of scire facias in the instant case was sued out on June 3, 1931, and the Act of 1931 went into effect on September 1, 1931. The question, therefore, arises: What effect, if any, has this amending act upon pending litigation? It is undoubtedly procedural in its nature, and hence “it is applied, as of course, to litigation existing at the time of its passage”: Vinnacombe v. Phila., 297 Pa. 564; Bailey v. Lavine, 302 Pa. 273.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
This is a suit against the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, to recover damages for the alleged joint negligence of the two defendants. After both defendants appeared to the action, the city issued a scire facias under the Act of April 10, 1929, P. L. 479, to bring the transit company upon the record as an “additional defendant.” The court below quashed the writ, because it could not understand how one who was already a defendant could be an “additional defendant,” or “third party,” as we defined those words in First Nat. Bank of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Vinnacombe v. Phila. Am. S.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Goldman v. Mitchell-Fletcher Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- First Nat. Bk. of Pittsburgh v. BairdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Carroll v. HannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Keck v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Fisher v. DiehlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Frank v. W. S. Losier Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Marshall Impeachment CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Rau v. MankoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Bausewine v. Norristown Herald, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.