Case ID: pa-d-c_3/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Landis, P. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mann v. Mann.
    
      Action on contract — Oral or written — Amendment—Act of May 11,1915.
    
    Under the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, the statement in asmmpsii must show whether the contract was written or oral, and the question is properly raised by a motion to strike off the statement; but in such case the plaintiff will be allowed to amend.
    Motion to strike off plaintiff’s statement. C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1922, No. 40.
    
      John E. Malone, for rule; John M. Groff, contra.
    Dec. 23, 1922.
   Landis, P. J.,

The plaintiff filed her statement in the above case, in which she alleged that she “claims of the defendant the sum of Eighty Dollars ($80), with interest from Oct. 29, 1921, for plaintiff loaned to the defendant on Dec. 25,1919, the sum of Thirty Dollars ($30), and on March 7, 1920, the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50), both of which sums the defendant promised to repay to the plaintiff.” On Dec. 9, 1922, the defendant moved to strike off the statement because it was nowhere set forth therein whether the contract sued upon was verbal or in writing.

Section 9 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, provides that “in actions on contract it (the statement) shall state whether the contract was oral or in writing.” In Philadelphia Gear Co. v. The Climax Machine Co., 36 Lane. Law Rev. 271, this court held that, in an action for the price of goods sold, the statement must set forth whether the contract was oral or written, and that the question is properly raised by a motion to strike off the same. See, also, Zullinger v. Grebe, 33 Lanc. Law Rev. 401, 26 Dist. R. 483; Sorrick v. Scheetz, 33 Lanc. Law Rev. 401, 27 Dist. R. 750, and other cases.

It was, however, also decided that defects which were merely informalities and not harmful to the defendant might be amended: Encore Hosiery Co. v. York Knitting Co., 36 Lanc. Law Rev. 273. Therefore, as the objection raised is not a matter of substance, we will permit the plaintiff to amend her statement to cover the same, if she does so within ten days, and if she does not, the statement will be stricken off.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.