Hornung v. Schauseil Ins. Associates, Inc.
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Writing for the Court | HOFFMAN |
Citation | 619 A.2d 775,422 Pa.Super. 472 |
Parties | Jacob HORNUNG, Appellant, v. SCHAUSEIL INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., Edmund and Dorothy M. Schauseil, Peter DePaul and Nevis DePaul. |
Decision Date | 28 January 1993 |
Page 775
v.
SCHAUSEIL INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., Edmund and Dorothy M.
Schauseil, Peter DePaul and Nevis DePaul.
Filed Jan. 28, 1993.
Page 776
[422 Pa.Super. 474] Jonathan Petrakis, Valley Forge, for appellant.
Dion G. Rassias, Blue Bell, for appellees. (Submitted).
Before WIEAND, OLSZEWSKI and HOFFMAN, JJ.
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This is an appeal from an order granting appellees' preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer as to Counts IV, V and VI and as to all counts in the complaint regarding appellees Dorothy M. Schauseil and Nevis DePaul. Appellant presents the following questions for our review:
I. Where a shareholder's Complaint establishes that a corporation is wrongfully withholding 50% of his ownership interest therein and has refused shareholder's request for an accounting, are such facts sufficient to state a cause of action for an accounting and other equitable relief?
II. Where a shareholder's Complaint establishes that a corporation is wrongfully withholding 50% of his ownership interest therein and the officers and directors have refused to explain their actions or cooperate with shareholder, are such facts sufficient to support claims against the individual officers and directors?
Appellant's Brief at 2. For the following reasons, we quash in part and affirm in part.
[422 Pa.Super. 475] On September 28, 1990, appellant filed a complaint against appellees containing the following counts: (1) conversion; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) review of corporate actions pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1793; (5) request for custodian pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1767(a)(2); and (6) an accounting. On November 21, 1991, appellees filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer as to all counts in the complaint. Appellant filed a response on January 22, 1992. On January 29, 1992, the lower court granted appellees' preliminary objections and dismissed appellant's complaint. Appellant filed a petition for reconsideration which was granted on February 10, 1992. Subsequently, on March 13, 1992, the lower court granted appellees' preliminary objections to appellant's complaint in part as to (1) Count I, paragraph 20, (2) Counts IV, V and VI, and (3) all counts in the complaint against appellees Dorothy M. Schauseil and Nevis DePaul. Appellant's timely appeal followed.
In light of the procedural posture of this appeal, we must first determine whether the trial court's partial grant of appellees' preliminary objections is an appealable final order. Only an order which effectively puts the litigant out of court is considered final and appealable. See Jackson
Page 777
v. Moultrie, 288 Pa.Super. 252, 255, 431 A.2d 1033, 1034-35 (1981) (citations omitted).With respect to Dorothy M. Schauseil and Nevis DePaul, appellant is 'out of court' as all counts against them have been dismissed. See U.S. Nat. Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson, 506 Pa. 622, 629, 487 A.2d 809, 813 (1985) ("[T]he dismissal of a complaint as to one defendant upon its preliminary objections is a final and appealable order...."). Hence, that part of the trial court's order dismissing all counts against Dorothy M. Schauseil and Nevis DePaul will be reviewed on appeal.
However, our analysis does not end here. Regarding the other appellees, the lower court dismissed only Counts IV, V and VI. In general, "an order dismissing some but not all counts of a multi-count complaint is interlocutory and not appealable." Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332, 337-38, 459 A.2d 1255, 1258 (1983) (citations omitted).
Dorohovich v. West American Ins. Co., 403 Pa.Super. 412, 416-17, 589 A.2d 252, 254 (1991) (citations omitted). Because Counts IV, V and VI are not separate and distinct from the remaining causes of action, they are interlocutory and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Niehaus v. Delaware Valley Medical Center
...facts alleged in the complaint and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. Hornung v. Schauseil Insurance Associates, Inc., 422 Pa.Super. 472, 478, 619 A.2d 775, 778 (1993). The amended complaint in this case alleged that Niehaus, an employee of Delaware Valley Medical Cente......