Court Opinion

ID: 9707041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:59:34.908899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:27.245970
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I concur in the result because the relief sought in the equity proceeding is actually ancillary to the pending divorce action on the law side of the court and because the same relief could have been obtained by filing an ancillary motion in the divorce action. Since I regard the equity action as if it were filed on the law side of the court of common pleas, the service upon counsel is equivalent to service under Pa. R. C. P. 233 and 1027 and should not be confused with the initial service required in order to institute a lawsuit, under Pa. R. C. P. 1007.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Eagen join in this concurring opinion.