Court Opinion

ID: 9630407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:10:38.239008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:38.166466
License: Public Domain

Con CTTEitiNG- Opinion by
Spaeth, J. :
I agree with Judge Jacobs’ statement of the cases and therefore join him in reversing the court below. In my view, however, the cases are poorly reasoned and should be overruled. I would not overrule them for the purpose of this case, for that would be unfair to appellant, who was entitled to rely on them, but I would overrule them prospectively.
*26I would construe Rules 1007,1008 and 1009 together to mean that an action is not “commenced” so as to toll the statute of limitations until the plaintiff’s attorney has done two things: first, he must have filed with the prothonotary either a complaint or a praecipe for a writ of summons, and second, he must have filed with the sheriff an attested copy of the complaint or writ with an instruction to effect service.
I recognize that this construction of the rules would eliminate the practice of filing the complaint or praecipe with the prothonotary and then either not going to the sheriff at all or going to him but instructing him not to make service. This practice, however, should be eliminated. Its only purpose is to save the cost of service, and that is not a purpose consistent with a fair legal system, as Judge Price’s opinion demonstrates.
Hoffman, J., joins in this opinion.