Opinion
September 12, 1958.
March 18, 1959.
Practice — Judgments — Motion for judgment on the pleadings — Cross actions in replevin — Lien — Damages — Necessity of trial.
Where it appeared that plaintiff, a lawyer, engaged defendants to perform certain accounting services; that plaintiff instituted an action in replevin to recover the return of papers allegedly belonging to him and averring damages in a specified sum; that defendants in their answer denied that they had been paid for their services, averring that there was still a balance due them, and asserted a lien on plaintiff's papers and records; that in addition defendants instituted an action in replevin to recover from plaintiff certain work records belonging to defendants; that plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that defendants did not have a lien; and that the court below, holding that proper disposition of the controversy required that the two actions be tried together, refused plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 304, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1957, No. 2273, in case of Philip S. Polis v. Ralph M. Fratkin et. al. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 16 Pa. D. C. 2d 298.
Replevin.
Order entered refusing plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, opinion by BOYLE, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Charles Polis, for appellant, in propria persona.
Melvin Lashner, with him Miller, Adelman Lavine, for appellees.
Argued September 12, 1958.
This is a replevin action which, with another replevin action brought by the defendant in this action against the plaintiff, grew out of services rendered by a firm of accountants to a firm of lawyers. Each firm is seeking the return of papers allegedly belonging to the other firm, and each asks a money verdict against the other. These matters should be disposed of at a pretrial conference where professional men of the type here involved would be able to discuss their differences intelligently, and, under the supervision of the judge, arrive at a just solution of the controversy without resorting to prolonged litigation hardly merited by the circumstances of this case.
The matter now before us, which could only partially dispose of the controversy, was properly decided by the court below.
The order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge BOYLE for the court below, which is published in 16 Pa. D. C. 2d 298.