Court Opinion

ID: 9643239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:23:37.287509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:58.667833
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Cercone, J.:
I dissent from the majority’s opinion on the reasoning that appellant had twenty days from the date of the service of writ of replevin with bond within which to file its answer. When plaintiff praeciped to have the writ of replevin issued with bond, rather than without bond as originally sought, plaintiff necessarily amended its cause of action from one without bond to one with bond. These two causes of action are distinct and separate from each other. The action of replevin without bond is personam in nature and the action of replevin with bond is in rem in nature. This distinction and the importance thereof was clearly stated by the Supreme Court in County Construction Co. v. Livengood Construction Corp., 393 Pa. 39 (1958).
That the later praecipe for writ of replevin with bond and the service thereof constituted an important amendment and change is clearly revealed by the fact that the action of replevin with bond could not have been begun by the filing of a complaint as had originally been filed. Rule 1073 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides that whereas the action of replevin without bond may be commenced by filing with the Prothonotary a praecipe for a writ of replevin without bond or a complaint, an action of replevin with bond can be commenced only by filing a praecipe for *234writ of replevin with, bond, together with affidavit of value and bond.
Therefore, when plaintiff in this case filed its praecipe for writ of replevin with bond, it was commencing a new cause of action in the only mwmer m which such cause of action could have been commenced. It follows that defendant was entitled to twenty days from the date of the service of that writ of replevin with bond in which to file its appearance and answer.
This conclusion is in no way weakened by the fact that the praecipe for writ of replevin with bond was required under Rule 1073 (b) to be issued in the original action. The complaint originally filed and served upon defendant cannot under the Rules be viewed as the commencement of the action of replevin with bond.
I therefore strongly dissent from the majority’s opinion and would reverse the action of the court below.