C. E. Williams Co. v. Henry B. Pancoast Co.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1963
• Citation: 194 A.2d 189,412 Pa. 166
• Parties: C. E. WILLIAMS CO. to the Use of Maryland Casualty Co. v. HENRY B. PANCOAST COMPANY, Defendant, and Watts Regulator Company, Additional Defendant. Appeal of WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY, Additional Defendant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 189

194 A.2d 189

412 Pa. 166

C. E. WILLIAMS CO. to the Use of Maryland Casualty Co. v. HENRY B. PANCOAST COMPANY, Defendant and Watts Regulator Company, Additional Defendant Appeal of WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY, Additional Defendant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 9, 1963.

Joseph R. Thompson, Roger B. Wood, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Samuel Moonblatt, Berk, Masino & Moonblatt, Philadelphia, for appellee Henry B. Pancoast Co.

Richard D. Harburg, Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, for appellee, C. E. Williams Co., to the Use of Maryland Casualty Co.

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

JONES, Justice.

This appeal challenges the propriety of the action of the court below in refusing to permit the withdrawal of the entry of a general appearance by counsel for an additional corporate defendant which seeks to attack the court's jurisdiction over its person.

The use-plaintiff, Maryland Casualty Company, in the name of C. E. Williams Company [Williams] instituted an assumpsit action against Henry B. Pancoast Company [Pancoast] alleging that Williams had purchased from Pancoast a certain 'relief valve' for use in the construction of a public school, that this valve was impliedly warranted by Pancoast to be suitable for its intended use, that it was not suitable for such use and that, by reason of such unsuitability, certain damages from water occurred in the boilerroom of a school constructed by Williams. Three months thereafter, Pancoast joined Watts Regulator Company [Watts] as an additional defendant, and, sometime thereafter, Pancoast filed and served a complaint against Watts alleging that the 'relief valve' had been manufactured and sold by Watts to Pancoast, that, if the valve was defective as alleged by Williams, it was due to Watts' negligence, that Watts breached its warranty to Pancoast, that Watts was solely liable to Williams and that, in order to protect its right of contribution against Watts, Pancoast joined Watts as an additional defendant.

On November 9, 1961-17 days after service on Watts of Pancoast's complaint--Watts, by its counsel, entered a general appearance.

On November 14, 1961, Watts filed preliminary objections which, inter alia, questioned the court's jurisdiction over its person, i. e. that Watts, a foreign corporation not registered to do business in Pennsylvania, had not appointed an agent to receive service of process in Pennsylvania and that service upon Watts was faulty in that it was made upon an employee of an independent contractor. Pancoast answered these objections.

On October 5, 1962, a petition was presented to the court by Watts through its counsel wherein it was alleged that the entry of a general appearance had been inadvertently filed by Watts' counsel and that such entry of appearance was filed contrary to counsel's intention, without his knowledge and 'before it was possible to stop such filing.' Upon a rule granted and answer filed, the matter was heard before Judge McClanaghan of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County who refused to permit the withdrawal of the general appearance. From that order this appeal was taken.

The principles of law which govern the instant case are well settled. When a defendant in a civil action enters a general appearance in answer to a summons, he cannot afterwards question the court's jurisdiction by an appearance de bene esse: 12 P.S. § 672; Welser v. Ealer, 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429. By the entry of a general appearance or any act which is equivalent thereof, a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over his person: Newman v. Shreve, 229 Pa. 200, 78 A. 79; English v. English, 19 Pa.Super. 586.

The rule that a defendant by entering general appearance waives all objections to the jurisdiction of the court over its person has not been modified or changed by the Rules of Civil Procedure: Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 1017, 1028(b), 1032, 12 P.S.Appendix; Yentzer...