Birdsboro Corp. v. Weng

• Decision Date: 16 June 1993
• Citation: Birdsboro Corp. v. Weng, 426 Pa.Super. 301, 626 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)
• Parties: BIRDSBORO CORPORATION v. Simon X. WENG and R.W. McPherson, t/d/b/a R.W. McPherson & Associates. Appeal of Simon X. WENG.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 1216

626 A.2d 1216

426 Pa.Super. 301

BIRDSBORO CORPORATION v.Simon X. WENG and R.W. McPherson, t/d/b/a R.W. McPherson &

Associates.

Appeal of Simon X. WENG.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 5, 1993.

Filed June 16, 1993.

Robert X. Medonis, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Charles W. Robinson, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before WIEAND, OLSZEWSKI and TAMILIA, JJ.

WIEAND, Judge.

The appeal in this action is from an order which, following jury trial, awarded to R.W. McPherson & Associates, Inc. the sum of forty thousand ($40,000.00) dollars which had been paid into court, and denied a claim made thereto by Simon X. Weng.

The case involved a dispute about which claimant was entitled to commissions from the sale of machinery to the Shanghai Alloy Works, a business located in the People's Republic of China.Birdsboro Corporation admitted that it owed the commissions but, by action in equity commenced on November 6, 1986, asked the court to determine which claimant or claimants were entitled to receive the same.On November 26, 1986, Birdsboro was permitted to pay the sum of forty thousand ($40,000.00) dollars into court, and the claimants were required to interplead their claims.Shortly before trial, Weng moved in limine to prevent testimony by R.W. McPherson on grounds that R.W. McPherson & Associates, Inc., and McPherson, individually, had assigned their interest in the fund to Charles W. Robinson, Esquire, as payment of fees.Robinson explained during a pre-trial conference that the assignment was intended to cover charges appearing on monthly invoices and that all of said charges had been paid.Accordingly, he said, he had no present interest in the fund.The trial court denied Weng's motion in limine and allowed McPherson to testify at trial.Following trial, the funds were awarded to McPherson.Post-trial motions were denied.

Weng argues on appeal that the disposition of his motion in limine was erroneous and that the trial court erred when it refused to allow evidence of an assignment to be submitted to the jury.He argues that the trial court's rulings on this issue prevented his raising the statute of limitations as a defense against the real party in interest.Because there is no merit in this contention, we affirm.

Pa.R.C.P. 2004 is applicable to transfers of interest and provides as follows:

If a plaintiff has commenced an action in his own name and thereafter transfers his interest therein, in whole or in part, the action may continue in the name of the original plaintiff, or upon petition of the original pla...