29 A.2d 533 | Pa. | 1942
This is the fourth time the subject of this litigation has been presented in this court.1 The question is whether three notes made by and secured by a mortgage given by defendant telephone company to Jerome K. Packard November 1, 1927, are valid. The mortgagor-maker alleges want of consideration in violation of Article XVI, section 7, of the Constitution. The first suit was a bill by the mortgagor against Packard's administrator for the cancellation of the notes and the satisfaction of the mortgage on the ground stated. The bill was dismissed: Bradford County Telephone Co. v. Young,
"(a) The minute books of the defendant company;
"(b) The journal or journals of the defendant company;
"(c) The ledgers of the defendant company;
"(d) Each and all of the inventories of the defendant company from its beginning to the giving of the mortgage in question. . ." Defendant appealed from that interlocutory order and, no statute providing for such appeal, it was quashed.
Packard's administrator then filed a bill, the fourth proceeding, alleging the creation of the obligations, default, the issue of the scire facias to foreclose, and averring the need of documents in defendant's possession. After preliminary objections were overruled, defendant answered on the merits. Plaintiff then filed the petition which resulted in the order assigned for error on the present appeal. In argument, it was stated that this petition was filed to enforce the right granted by Equity Rule No. 35.2 By the order appealed from ". . . the *93 defendant is required and directed to permit plaintiff's counsel to examine at its office where the books, inventories, records and papers are kept so much of the same as will enable the plaintiff to properly amend his bill by giving a more accurate and definite description of the particular books, records, inventories and papers sought by the bill for discovery."
The record does not call for discussion of the scope of Equity Rule 35. The order is too general to be allowed and at the same time too indefinite to be enforced.3 Judging from the record which was considered in the case reported in
The appeal, being from an interlocutory order, is quashed.