Case Name: Harvey, trading, etc., v. Salisbury Auto Company
Court: Somerset County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-07-12
Citations: 4 Pa. D. & C. 320
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harvey, trading, etc., v. Salisbury Auto Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania District and County Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 320–320

Head Matter:
Harvey, trading, etc., v. Salisbury Auto Company.
Statement of claim — Fictitious Names Acts of June 28, 1917, and May 10, 1921 — Speaking demurrer.
1. Obedience to law is always presumed until the contrary appears in the proofs upon the trial.
2. If the plaintiff is silent in his statement of claim as to the registration required under the Fictitious Names Acts of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, and May 10, 1921, P. L. 465, the defendant cannot have the action dismissed by motion, but is entitled to defend upon the ground that no certificate has been filed as required by the statutes at the trial of the case.
Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action. C. P. Somerset Co., Feb. T., 1923, No. 169.
Joseph Levy, for plaintiff; J. C. Lowry, for defendant.
July 12, 1923.

Opinion:
Berkey, P. J.,
— The plaintiff filed a statement in an action of assumpsit, alleging the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for two barrels of oil sold and delivered to the defendant, in the sum of $51.50.
The defendant filed an aifidavit of defence, alleging that the plaintiff's declaration shows him to have been doing business under an assumed or fictitious name, and that the plaintiff has not registered as required by the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, as amended by the Act of May 10, 1921, P. L. 465, wherefore, defendant prays plaintiff's action may be dismissed.
The plaintiff's statement is silent upon the matter of registration. Obedience to the law is always presumed until the contrary appears in the proofs upon the trial (Stein & Samson v. Slomkowski, 74 Pa. Superior Ct. 156, 159), but the defendant is entitled to defend upon the ground that no certificate had been filed as required by the statutes; however, this is an answer which alleges new matter, in addition to that contained in the plaintiff's statement, as a cause of demurrer; in other words, it is what in common law pleading was called a speaking demurrer.
"A demurrer is never founded on matter collateral to the pleading which it opposes, but arises on the statement itself." This case is ruled in Bovaird v. Barrett & Son, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 68.
Decree. — July 12, 1923, motion to dismiss plaintiff's action overruled, and the prothonotary is directed to enter the case on the trial list in accordance with the rule of court in such case made and provided.
From P. (5. Cober, Somerset, Pa.