Dzedzej v. Prusinski

• Decision Date: 06 November 1969
• Citation: 259 A.2d 384
• Parties: Joseph DZEDZEJ, Appellant, Defendant Below, v. Henry PRUSINSKI, Appellee, Plaintiff Below.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 384

259 A.2d 384

Joseph DZEDZEJ, Appellant, Defendant Below, v. Henry PRUSINSKI, Appellee, Plaintiff Below.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Nov. 6, 1969.

John E. Babiarz, Jr., Wilmington, for appellant, defendant below.

Sidney Balick, of Aerenson & Balick, Wilmington, for appellee, plaintiff below.

OPINION

STOREY, Judge.

This case arises for a determination of plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal to this Court from a judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court which was adverse to the defendant. Plaintiff's motion is based upon a lack of jurisdiction of this Court to hear the case because the parties to this appeal are not the same as the parties below.

The action was originally brought by plaintiff, Henry Prusinski, against defendants, Joseph Dzedzej and Hedwig Dzedzej for goods sold and delivered. The Court below found for plaintiff against Joseph Dzedzej and dismissed the action as to Hedwig Dzedzej. Joseph Dzedzej now appeals from the adverse judgment against him but has captioned the appeal 'Joseph Dzedzej v. Henry Prusinski'. Hedwig Dzedzej was not joined in the appeal.

The issue to be decided is whether this Court lacks jurisdiction of an appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court where the defendant appealing from an adverse judgment below fails to join his co-defendant against whom the action below was dismissed.

Where a suit has been brought against co-defendants and judgment is favorable as to one and adverse as to the other it has been held that the successful party should be joined in the appeal where that party's rights or interests may be affected by the outcome of the review. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 401. In McDowell v. Simpson, 1 Houst. 467 (Super.Ct.1885) the Court held that if an appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court fails to correspond to the process on which the action is founded in the names of the parties, number of parties, or in the character of the suit, the variance is fatal and the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. While this case represents an anachronism when viewed in light of modern day pleading, it does serve to show that a defective pleading may serve to deprive the Court of Jurisdiction. This case was cited in a 1969 opinion in support of a ruling dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction for failure to join a party.

In Cooper's Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Smith, Del., 250 A.2d 507 (1969) plaintiff recovered a default judgment against one party and the action was dismissed as to the other party. Plaintiff appealed but failed to join the party he recovered against below. The Court held that the appeal failed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to join the party against whom the default judgment was recovered below. The Court reasoned that an appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court entitled the parties to a trial de novo in this Court. In a case where parties are being sued jointly a trial de novo necessarily involves not only a determination of the rights of the plaintiff against the defendants but also a determination of the rights as between the defendants. The essence of this holding is that an entire cause of action cannot be severed from the appeal, and this would be the case where one of the parties to a joint suit is omitted on appeal because the Court could only determine the rights as between the plaintiff and the appealing defendant and not the additional question of...