Citation Numbers: 181 A. 597, 320 Pa. 27
Judges: OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE DREW, November 25, 1935:
Filed Date: 10/15/1935
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
On September 20, 1934, plaintiffs instituted this action of trespass against H. A. Peck to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the minor plaintiff as a result of Peck's negligence. The writ was returned nihil habet. Thereafter plaintiffs discovered that Peck had died on December 3, 1933, and that letters testamentary had been issued to the executors named in his last will and testament. On December *Page 29 22, 1934, the plaintiffs petitioned the court to amend the caption of the case by substituting the executors as parties defendant, which petition was allowed. On January 21, 1935, an alias writ of summons was issued, and the executors, the present defendants, were duly served therewith. Alleging that the court was without jurisdiction to permit the amendment, defendants later petitioned to have the order of amendment vacated and for an order quashing the writs. A rule to show cause was granted and subsequently discharged. This appeal followed.
At the time of Peck's death plaintiffs had a claim against him for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by his negligence. The action was a personal one and at common law it would have perished with the death of the wrongdoer. To remedy the injustice that resulted from the common-law rule whereby an injured party was denied all relief in the event of the wrongdoer's death prior to the commencement of suit against him, statutes were passed from time to time providing for the survival of the cause of action. The provisions of these statutes have been reënacted and supplemented by section 35 (b) of the Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, as amended by the Act of March 30, 1921, P. L. 55, and the Act of May 2, 1925, P. L. 442. That section, as so amended, provides in part as follows: "Executors or administrators . . . shall be liable to be sued . . . in any [personal] action . . . which might have been maintained against such decedent if he had lived. All such rights of action which were not barred by the statutes of limitation at the time of the death of decedent may be brought against his executors or administrators at any time within one year after the death of the decedent, notwithstanding the provisions of any statutes of limitations whereby they would have been sooner barred." Upon Peck's death plaintiffs' rights became subject to the provisions of this statute and were measured by it, and, unless suit was brought against the personal *Page 30 representatives within the time therein prescribed, it is now completely barred. Plaintiffs instituted no proceedings against defendants within the year following December 3, 1933, the date of Peck's death, and their action is therefore barred by the statute.
Plaintiffs contend that the commencement of suit against decedent on September 20, 1934, was a sufficient compliance with the statute. Not only do the terms of the act warrant no such construction, but it is also apparent that plaintiffs' reasoning is entirely fallacious. It is fundamental that an action at law requires a person or entity which has the right to bring the action, and a person or entity against which the action can be maintained. By its very terms, an action at law implies the existence of legal parties; they may be natural or artificial persons, but they must be entities which the law recognizes as competent. A dead man cannot be a party to an action (see Campbell v. Galbreath, 5 Watts 423, 428; Sandback v. Quigley, 8 Watts 460, 463; Patterson v. Brindle, 9 Watts 98, 100; Hurst v. Fisher, 1 W. S. 438), and any such attempted proceeding is completely void and of no effect: Brooks v. B.
N. Street Ry. Co.,
The order of the court below is reversed; the writs are quashed, and the service and all proceedings subsequent thereto are reversed and set aside. *Page 31
LaBar v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad , 218 Pa. 261 ( 1907 )
Girardi v. Laquin Lumber Co. , 232 Pa. 1 ( 1911 )
Coyne v. Lakeside Electric Railway Co. , 227 Pa. 496 ( 1910 )
Harold l.loudenslager v. Margaret Bittinger Teeple , 466 F.2d 249 ( 1972 )
Brock v. A-1 Auto Service, Inc. , 45 Conn. Super. Ct. 525 ( 1998 )
Noble v. Corkin , 45 Conn. Super. Ct. 330 ( 1998 )
Noble v. Corkin, No. 392737 (Mar. 20, 1998) , 21 Conn. L. Rptr. 547 ( 1998 )
Chaouki v. City of New Haven, No. Cv97-0407166s (Nov. 16, ... , 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15316 ( 2001 )
Mercer v. Morgan , 86 N.M. 711 ( 1974 )
Morrison Info. v. Members 1st FCU , 635 Pa. 636 ( 2016 )
Hartlove, T. v. Parks, L. ( 2018 )
Morrison Info. v. Members 1st FCU , 97 A.3d 1233 ( 2014 )
Commonwealth v. Sam , 597 Pa. 523 ( 2008 )
Philadelphia Facilities Management Corp. v. Biester , 60 Pa. Commw. 366 ( 1981 )
Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Center of Beaver County, Inc. , 487 Pa. 266 ( 1979 )
Grant v. Carpenters' Dist. Council , 322 Pa. 62 ( 1936 )
Ehrhardt v. Costello , 437 Pa. 556 ( 1970 )
Custren v. Curtis , 392 Pa. Super. 394 ( 1990 )
Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea , 282 F. Supp. 525 ( 1968 )
Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway , 146 F. Supp. 926 ( 1956 )
Williamsport Firemen Pension Boards I & II v. E.F. Hutton & ... , 567 F. Supp. 140 ( 1983 )
Kasych, A. v. Butz, E. ( 2016 )