Case Name: Ferraro et al. v. Hines, Director General of Railroads of the United States Railroad Administration, Operating the Pittsburgh and Shawmut Railroad
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1921-07-14
Citations: 77 Pa. Super. 274
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 96
Parties: Ferraro et al. v. Hines, Director General of Railroads of the United States Railroad Administration, Operating the Pittsburgh and Shawmut Railroad.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 274–281

Head Matter:
Ferraro et al. v. Hines, Director General of Railroads of the United States Railroad Administration, Operating the Pittsburgh and Shawmut Railroad.
Carriers — Negligence — Action to recover damages for goods lost in transit — Failure of shipper to register trade name — Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 6^5.
The Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, providing for the registration of trade names makes it unlawful to carry on business under an assumed or fictitious name. The courts will not lend their aid to persons doing business in violation of this act.
A shipper, whose property has been lost in transit by a common carrier, to which it was intrusted, cannot recover in an action of trespass in the courts of Pennsylvania, where he has failed to register his trade name, as required by the provisions of the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645.
Keller, J., dissents.
Argued April 13, 1921.
Appeal, No. 96, April T., 1921, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Jefferson County, January T., 1920, No. 152, in favor of defendant on question of law raised in affidavit of defense in the case of Albert Ferraro and Amelia Ferraro, Trading and Doing Business as A. Ferraro & Co., v. Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, of the United States Railroad Administration, operating the Pittsburgh and Shawmut Railroad.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for property lost in transit, while in custody of a common carrier. Before Corbet, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The defendant filed an affidavit of defense raising a question of law that the plaintiffs were a copartnership, doing business under the firm name of A. Ferraro and Company without having complied with the terms of the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, requiring registration with the prothonotary and the secretary of the Commonwealth, and that therefore they could not bring an action in the courts of Pennsylvania.
The court entered judgment in favor of the defendant on the pleadings. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order qf the court.
W. L. McCracken, for appellants, cited:
Line Company et al., 101 Pa. 204; Swan v. Scott, 11 Sergeant & Rawle’s Reports, 164; Wright v. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. 204; The Oil Creek & Allegheny River R. R. Co. v. Penn Transportation Co., 83 Pa. 160; Lestapies v. Ingraham, 5 Pa. 82; Johnson v. Huling, 103 Pa. 502; Sandy Lake Boro. v. Gas Co., 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 241.
Edgar W. Tait, and with him Edwin E. Tait and Edward E. Carmalt, for appellee, cited:
Sykes Department Store v. Railroad Co., 67 Pitts. L. J. 517; Snaman v. Maginn, 68 Pitts. L. J. 385; Graighill v. Hoff, 68 Pitts. L. J. 387; Codorus Planing Mill Co. v. Horn, 68 Pitts. L. J. 26; Donahue v. Mellinger, 37 Lanc. L. R. 48; Ackerman v. Meckoloff, 68 Pitts. L. J. 313; Koons v. Nice, 36 Montgomery L. R. 187.
July 14, 1921:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
This suit is brought by Albert Ferraro and Amelia Ferraro, trading and doing business as A. Ferraro & Company. The Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, provides that "no individual or individuals shall hereafter carry on or conduct any business in this Commonwealth under any assumed or fictitious name, style or designation, unless the person or persons conducting or carrying on the same shall have first filed in the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth and in the office of the prothonotary......a certificate......setting forth the real name or names and addresses, of all the persons owning or interested in the said business, and also the name, style or designation under which said business is being or will be carried on or conducted."
The first inquiry presented is, Is A. Ferraro & Company an assumed or fictitious name? In the recent case of Moyer et al. v. Kennedy, 76 Pa. Superior Ct. 523, we held that the firm name of Moyer & Carpenter came under the ban of the act in that the firm was composed of three partners, the third being Miller, and that the name was assumed or fictitious; that it conveyed a false impression. Instead of being what the name indicated, a partnership of two persons, it was actually composed of three persons. The present case differs somewhat from that, in tlmt the word "company" is used. The word "company" gives no notice as to who the other member or members of the firm are. There may be one or many. Certainly it does not indicate that Amelia Ferraro was the other member. It might apply to any one. The word is impersonal. We think the title comes within the prohibition of the act.
A question whether those who do business under a fictitious or assumed name may enforce a contract entered into in the prosecution of such business has been discussed in a number of cases. The act of assembly above referred to makes it unlawful to carry on business under an assumed or fictitious name, and the courts will not lend their aid to persons doing business in violation of the act. This phase of the subject has been discussed in the cases of Moyer et al. v. Kennedy, supra, and that of Snaman v. Maginn, the opinion in the latter case by our Brother Head being filed concurrently with this. We can add nothing profitably to what has already been said upon this matter.
It is argued that the contract in this case being made with the railroad company in the name of A. Ferraro, its enforcement does not necessarily involve the business of the firm. The suit however, is brought by Albert Ferraro and Amelia Ferraro doing business as A. Ferraro & Company. On the face of things the transaction occurred in the business they were conducting. Had Ferraro desired to submit proof that the transaction was not in the line of his business, or that he was acting solely as an individual, not trading under a fictitious name, the course open to him would have been to have declared accordingly.
As to all the questions involved, we think the lower court decided the case correctly.
The judgment is affirmed.