Opinion
November 27, 1936.
December 16, 1936.
Practice — Scire facias to join additional defendants — Time of issuance — Scire Facias Act of 1929 — Rules of court — Interpretation — Amended statement of claim.
1. Under the Scire Facias Act of 1929, as amended, there is no limit of time set within which a writ of scire facias must issue to join additional defendants; it is for the courts of common pleas to fix a reasonable time. [14]
2. An interpretation by a court of its own rules is conclusive on appeal, in the absence of an abuse of power. [14]
3. Where a rule of the court of common pleas provided that no writ of scire facias should issue unless the præcipe therefor be filed not more than sixty days after the service upon defendant of the statement of claim or any amendment thereto, and plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim eleven months after the original, whereupon the defendant caused writs of scire facias to issue, joining others as additional defendants, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse a motion to quash the writs, applied for on the ground that the writs were issued too late as the amended statement varied little from the original, and, so construed, was no amendment at all. [13, 14]
4. Whether or not the amendment was substantial was a question solely within the discretion of the court which promulgated the rule. [14]
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 400 and 401, Jan. T., 1936, by additional defendants, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1935, No. 7540, in case of Hugh Blessing v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company and Mary E. Devlin, executrix, and Joseph Cullen, additional defendants. Order affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Writs of scire facias issued by defendant to join additional defendants. Rules by additional defendants to strike off writs of scire facias discharged, opinion by LAMBERTON, J. Additional defendants appealed.
Error assigned was discharge of rules.
Elias Magil, Philip Sterling, of Sterling Willing, and Bernard J. Myers, for appellants.
Harry S. Ambler, Jr., and Bernard J. O'Connell, for appellee.
Submitted November 27, 1936.
Rule 226(4) of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County provides:
"No . . . writ of scire facias shall issue . . . unless the præcipe therefor be filed not more than sixty (60) days after the service upon [the defendant] of the statement of claim or any amendment thereto . . .
"The time in which a writ may issue may be extended by the court on cause shown."
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim was filed eleven months after the original. Thereupon the defendant, appellee, caused writs of scire facias to issue, joining as additional defendants these two appellants. The writs are objected to on the ground that they came too late as the amended statement varied very little from the original and, so construed, was no amendment at all. The court below refused to quash the writs. There is no limit of time mentioned in the Sci. Fa. Act of 1929, as amended, within which a writ of scire facias must issue to join additional defendants. The matter is regulated by the common pleas courts, which must fix a reasonable time: Carroll v. Quaker City Cabs, 308 Pa. 345. The rule permits the scire facias to issue after "any amendment," and this court will not undertake to reverse a lower court under such a rule by determining whether the amendment is substantial or not. It is a matter solely within the discretion of the court which promulgated the rule: Richter v. Scranton City, 321 Pa. 430; Haverford Township School District v. Herzog, 314 Pa. 161. That discretion has not been abused in this case. The court below was interpreting its own rule, and, in the absence of an abuse of power, such interpretation is conclusive on us.
The order of the court below is affirmed, at appellants' cost.