Court Opinion

ID: 9758832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:51:55.902425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:56.745558
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix:
I dissent.
The result reached by the Court today represents yet another determined effort to ignore the clear mandate of Art. V, Sec. V of the Pennsylvania Constitution*1131 and to frustrate tlie policy the framers of that Article sought to accomplish. See also, Posner v. Sheridan, 451 Pa. 51, 299 A. 2d 309 (1973); Eberhardt v. Ovens, 436 Pa. 320, 259 A. 2d 683 (1969). As I noted in my dissent in Posner v. Sheridan, supra, at 64 (joined by Bobeuts and Mandeiuno, JJ.), the unification of the courts of common pleas was designed to eliminate the procedural pitfalls posed by the overlapping and sometimes hazy boundaries of the jurisdictions of the former courts. 451 Pa. at 65. The instant case arguably could have been an appropriate subject for a Court of Equity, as suggested by my brother, Mr. Justice Pomeroy, in his dissenting opinion in this case. Assuming, however, that the Chancellor was correct in his judgment that the Orphans’ Court Division would be a more appropriate form for this action, there is absolutely no basis for his Decree dismissing the complaint and placing the plaintiff in the position of perhaps having his action forever barred by a statute of limitations.2
We are of the opinion that at best this may have been an inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction. We note that even if the majority was correct in its determination that there was no jurisdiction in the court below, the result reached could have been avoided under Pa. R.C.P. 213(f).3
*114I must dissent from the Court’s affirmance of the Decree dismissing this complaint.
Mr. Justice Manderino joins in this dissenting opinion.

 “There shall bo one court of common pleas for each judicial district. .. having unlimited original jurisdiction in all cases except as may otherwise be provided by law.”

 The record does not show whether distribution of the decedent’s estate has occurred. Our decision today may have resulted in precluding relief to this litigant Bee, Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, Act of June 30, 1972, P. L. 508, No. 164, 20 P.S. §3533.

 “When an action is commenced in a court which has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action it shall not be dismissed if there is another court of appropriate jurisdiction within the Commonwealth in which the action could originally have been brought but the court shall transfer the action at the cost of the plaintiff to the court of appropriate jurisdiction.”