Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION and Sanders and Thomas, Inc. v. TENSOREX COMPANY, INC., a New York Corporation, Tensorex Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, No. 1 Contracting Corporation of Delaware, Sanders and Thomas, Inc., Brookhart and Tyo and Tyo and Fleischer, Inc
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1979-07-16
Citations: 486 Pa. 186
Docket Number: No. 51
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION and Sanders and Thomas, Inc. v. TENSOREX COMPANY, INC., a New York Corporation, Tensorex Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, No. 1 Contracting Corporation of Delaware, Sanders and Thomas, Inc., Brookhart and Tyo and Tyo and Fleischer, Inc.
Judges: Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 486
Pages: 186–194

Head Matter:
404 A.2d 692
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION and Sanders and Thomas, Inc. v. TENSOREX COMPANY, INC., a New York Corporation, Tensorex Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, No. 1 Contracting Corporation of Delaware, Sanders and Thomas, Inc., Brookhart and Tyo and Tyo and Fleischer, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued May 21, 1979.
Decided July 16, 1979.
Reargument Denied Aug. 17, 1979.
Roger T. Shoop, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Stuart J. Moskovitz, Harrisburg, for appellee Dept, of Transp. Edward E. Knauss, III, Harrisburg, for appellee Brookhart & Tyo & Tyo & Fleischer. Henry W. Rhoads, Harrisburg, for appellee Tensorex. David E. Lehman, Harrisburg, for appellee Bethlehem Steel.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted to consider the continued validity of the rule that the statute of limitations does not run against the Commonwealth in light of Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). But that issue should not be decided in this case because the Commonwealth Court's refusal to allow an amendment to the answer in order to raise the statute of limitations in new matter does not constitute an abuse of discretion even if we were to hold the statute of limitations applies to the Commonwealth.
The complaint instantly was filed over three years prior to the request to amend. The pleadings had closed over five months before the request, and discovery had been proceeding during that'period. Accordingly, the controlling question we sought to review need not now be considered.
MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion.