Gould v. Brock
| Decision Date | 27 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 333 |
| Citation | 69 A. 1122,221 Pa. 38 |
| Parties | Gould, Appellant, v. Brock |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 9, 1908
Appeal, No. 333, Jan. T., 1907, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1907, No. 2,595, sustaining demurrer to bill in equity in case of Claude C. Gould v. John W. Brock, Executor of Robert C. H. Brock, deceased, dand Travelers' Insurance Company of Hartford. Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an injunction.
The bill averred as follows:
One of defendants, John W. Brock, is executor of Robert C. H. Brock.
The other defendant, The Travelers' Insurance Company of Hartford, is a Connecticut corporation.
The plaintiff, Claude C. Gould, sued said Brock, executor, at law to recover damages for personal injuries negligently and unlawfully inflicted upon plaintiff by the deceased Brock, in the running of an automobile, which suit is pending.
Thereupon the said foreign corporation, not being of kin to the said Brock, and not sustaining any relation to him or to his estate, or to the plaintiff lawfully entitling it to interfere and intermeddle in the said common-law action, has nevertheless, for hire paid to it by said Brock, undertaken to maintain and conduct the defense against the said action at its own cost, and according to its sole discretion, and without any expense for costs or reference whatsoever to the said Brock, and for the purpose of obstructing, preventing and defeating plaintiff in his effort to enforce and obtain his just rights; and, in furtherance of its said unlawful undertaking, has caused to be entered in said common-law action an appearance and plea by its own attorney, ostensibly for said Brock, but in truth and in fact for itself, and proposes to maintain and conduct the defense in said litigation until final judgment, although the plaintiff has and can have no claim or recourse against the said corporation for the damages suffered and claimed by him in said common-law action against Brock.
By means of the said unlawful contrivance between said Brock and said corporation, and the resulting interference, intermeddling and maintenance by said corporation, the plaintiff is greatly harassed, hindered and prejudiced in his effort to obtain and enforce his just rights, to his irreparable injury and contrary to law and equity.
The bill prayed for an injunction:
1. Restraining said corporation from intermeddling in the action at law aforesaid.
2. Requiring it to withdraw the said appearance and plea.
3. Restraining Brock from receiving assistance from said corporation.
4. General relief.
A demurrer was filed to the bill, which was sustained by the court.
Error assigned was decree of the court sustaining the demurrer.
Decree affirmed.
T. A. Fenstermaker, with him James L. Stanton, for appellant. -- As between parties, contracts whose consideration is maintenance will not be enforced: Ormerod v. Dearman, 100 Pa. 561; Burt v. Place, 6 Cowen (N.Y.), 431; Harris v. Brown & Gunther, 9 Pa. Dist. Rep. 521; Brotherson v. Consalus, 26 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 213; McPherson v. Cox, 96 U.S. 404; Jeffries v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 305 (4 S.Ct. Repr. 8).
James Wilson Bayard and Frank P. Prichard, for appellees, were not heard.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial