Bernhardt v. Bass

Decision Date22 April 1927
Docket Number111-1927
Citation91 Pa.Super. 123
PartiesBernhardt v. Bass, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued March 15, 1927

Appeal from by defendant order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County-1926, No. 11545, in the case of Anton Bernhardt v William B. Bass, Sr.

Petition for rule to show cause why case should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Before Stern, P. J. and Gordon, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The Court discharged the rule. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, was the order of the Court.

Geo. G Parry, of White, Parry, Schnader & Maris, for appellant.

Rowland C. Evans, of Evans and Wernick, for appellee.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.

OPINION

GAWTHROP J.

On February 7, 1925, plaintiff brought an action in trespass in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County to recover damages in the sum of $ 2,500 for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision on December 1, 1923. Service of the writ and notice to file an affidavit of defense was made on defendant on the same day. The Municipal Court had, as defendant concedes, jurisdiction of defendant and the cause of action for which suit was brought. On July 16, 1926, plaintiff entered a rule on defendant to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of the county. The petition set forth that since the institution of the suit and the filing of the statement of claim plaintiff discovered that the damages which he sustained in the collision were much greater than the sum of $ 2,500, and that, as the limit of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court is $ 2,500, it was necessary that the case be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas in order that plaintiff might recover the full amount of damages to which he was entitled. The Municipal Court, after hearing, discharged the rule on July 26, 1926. On January 14, 1927, plaintiff filed a second petition for the transfer of the case to the Court of Common Pleas on the ground set forth in the original petition, and the Municipal Court made an order transferring the case to the Court of Common Pleas, the latter court having consented to the transfer. The order was made under the authority of Section 10 of the Act of July 12, 1913, P. L. 711, creating the Municipal Court, as amended by the Act of July 11, 1923, P. L. 1035, which provides, inter alia, as follows: " The said court shall also have authority, with the consent of the Court of Common Pleas, upon the application of the plaintiff, to transfer to that court all suits wrongfully brought in the Municipal Court in excess of its jurisdiction." On January 15, 1927, a copy of the second petition and order was served on defendant's counsel who, on January 19, 1927, filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas praying for a rule to show cause why the case should not be returned to the Municipal Court on the ground that the portion of Section 10 of the Act of 1923, above quoted, did not confer authority upon the Municipal Court to transfer a case to the Court of Common Pleas under the circumstances, and that, therefore, the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. On January 26, 1927, the rule granted on said petition was discharged. On January 29th, defendant entered a rule on plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This rule was discharged February 11, 1927, and from that order this appeal is taken.

Appellant contends that the Court of Common Pleas acquired no jurisdiction over him or the cause of action because Section 10 of the Act of 1913, as amended by the Act of 1923, supra conferred no authority on the Municipal Court to transfer the case to the Common Pleas, for the reason that the suit was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Village of Niles v. Szczesny
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 1958
    ...242 S.W. 826; Davis v. Petroleum Casualty Co., Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 649; Felletter v. Thompson, 133 Conn. 277, 50 A.2d 81; Bernhardt v. Bass, 91 Pa.Super. 123; Mercer v. Glass' Ex'r, 89 Ky. 199, 12 S.W. 194; Dunagin v. First Nat. Bank, 118 Miss. 809, 80 So. 276; 4 C.J.S. Appeal & Error §......
  • Gilbert v. Lebanon Valley Street Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 16 Marzo 1931
    ... ... an affidavit of defense: Wettengel v. Robinson, 288 ... Pa. 362; Wilson v. Garland, 287 Pa. 291; Howe v ... R.R., 295 Pa. 337; Bernhardt v. Bass, 91 ... Pa.Super. 123 ... Geo. B ... Balmer, with him Zieber & Snyder, for appellee. -- The ... provisions of the Act of May ... ...
  • Leppley v. Smith
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 22 Abril 1927
  • Mandel v. Freeland
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 25 Enero 1929
    ...Act of April 27, 1923, P. L. 107. Nor is the municipal court the court of " first instance" with respect to this suit: Bernhardt v. Bass, 91 Pa.Super. 123, 126. We the appeal in Perlman v. Finance & Guaranty Co., 242 October T., 1925 -- (no opinion filed) --, cited by appellee, because the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT