Welser v. Ealer

Decision Date07 January 1935
Docket Number414
PartiesWelser v. Ealer, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued November 28, 1934

Appeal, No. 414, Jan. T., 1934, by defendant, from decree of C.P. Northampton Co., Feb. T., 1934, No. 19, in case of Charles W. Welser v. Samuel S. Ealer. Appeal is quashed.

Trespass for personal injuries.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Defendant filed petition under the Act of 1925 to determine the jurisdiction of the court, and a rule was granted under the petition to show cause why a compulsory nonsuit should not be awarded. Rule discharged. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was decree, quoting record.

The appeal is quashed.

David B. Skillman, for appellant.

Robert S. Bachman, for appellee, was not heard.

Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1925, P.L. 23, authorizing an appeal from the preliminary determination of the lower court's "jurisdiction over the defendant or of the cause of action for which suit is brought." The action is in trespass to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant, the owner of the car in which plaintiff was riding when the accident occurred, filed a petition under the Act of 1925, supra, questioning the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that plaintiff, at the time of receiving the injury here complained of, was an employee of defendant and injured in the course of his employment. The petition further asserted that, as a consequence of the facts averred therein "plaintiff is precluded from asking damages for his injury by any method other than that prescribed in the Workmen's Compensation Act." A rule to show cause why a compulsory nonsuit should not be awarded was granted and after argument discharged by the court. Defendant appeals.

Any one of several reasons compels us to quash the appeal. In the first place defendant has not followed the provisions of the act. The summons in this case was issued December 14, 1933, and the statement of claim filed the same day. Service was accepted by defendant December 18, 1933. Instead of proceeding promptly and preliminarily to question the court's jurisdiction, defendant by his counsel entered a general appearance on December 22, 1933, and waited over six months thereafter, or until July 9, 1934, to present his petition raising the question of jurisdiction. We have several times held that once defendant has entered a general appearance in answer to a summons he cannot afterward question the court's jurisdiction by an appearance de bene esse in the manner provided by the Act of 1925, supra: Gray v. Camac, 304 Pa. 74; Nagle v. Nagle, 311 Pa. 187.

By accepting service and appearing generally defendant acknowledged the court's jurisdiction over his person. Manifestly it has jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged in the statement, namely, trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. No other matters are open for inquiry in proceedings of this nature. Jurisdiction of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • McWilliams v. McCabe
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1962
    ...378, 188 A. 337; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Johnston & Harder Inc., 330 Pa. 336, 340, 199 A. 216. Thus, in Welser v. Ealer, 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429, it was held that the court had jurisdiction over a suit for damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident, although......
  • Gardner v. Allegheny County
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1955
    ... ... plaintiffs state a cause of action over which a ... Court of Equity has jurisdiction? Welser v. Ealer, ... 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429; Com. ex rel. Shumaker v. New ... York & Pennsylvania Co., Inc., 367 Pa. 40, 79 A.2d 439; ... ...
  • Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1966
    ... ... Scott, 401 Pa. 310, 164 ... A.2d 424; County Const. Co. v. Livengood Const ... Corp., 393 Pa. 39, 142 A.2d 9; Welser v. Ealer, ... 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429 ... In the ... Vendetti case the defendant, a surgeon employed by the ... Government in a ... ...
  • Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1976
    ...Eisner Co., supra, and Ham v. Gouge, supra, With Sunlight Coal Co. v. Floyd, 233 Ky. 702, 26 S.W.2d 530 (1930), and Welser v. Ealer, 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429 (1935). Cf. Hansen v. Hayes, 175 Or. 358, 154 P.2d 202 (1944); Harrell v. Horton, 401 P.2d 461 (Okla.1965). In summary, we conclude th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT