Case Name: Sturiale et al. v. Pennsylvania Burial Co., Inc., Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1935-11-20
Citations: 119 Pa. Super. 402
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 202
Parties: Sturiale et al. v. Pennsylvania Burial Co., Inc., Appellant.
Judges: Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 402–404

Head Matter:
Sturiale et al. v. Pennsylvania Burial Co., Inc., Appellant.
Argued October 9, 1935.
Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.
Carlos Berguido, Jr., with him Guy K. Stewart and Brown & Williams, for appellant.
S. Regen Ginsburg, with him Sidney Schulman, for appellee.
November 20, 1935:

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam,
This judgment must be reversed.
There is no warrant in law for joining in one action of assumpsit three separate claims by three distinct persons growing out of three separate contracts with the same defendant, just because the plaintiffs happen to be father, mother and son: 1 Chitty on Pleading 11, 13; Boggs v. Curtin, 10 S. & B. 211. The action—that is, whether joint or several—must follow the form of the contract: Meason v. Kaine, 67 Pa. 126, 136.
The statutes directing that rights of action in trespass by husband and wife for personal injuries to the latter, or by parents in their own right and on behalf of their child, for personal injuries to the child, shall be redressed in one suit brought in their joint names have no application to actions in assumpsit on separate and distinct contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, each of them in his or her several right.
Judgment reversed, without prejudice to the rights of the several plaintiffs to bring separate actions on their respective contracts.
Aet of May 8, 1895, P. L. 54.
Act of May 12, 1897, P. L. 62.