# Young Antics, Inc. v. Jaymar Realty Corp.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 22, 1976 · 245 Pa. Super. 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695656

## Case

- **Full name:** YOUNG ANTICS, INC., in Its Own Right and New York Credit Men’s Adjustment Bureau, as Signee for the Benefit of Creditors of Young Antics, Inc. v. JAYMAR REALTY CORP. and A. P. Warnick, Appellants
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 22, 1976
- **Citations:** 245 Pa. Super. 244; 369 A.2d 385; 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2202
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Spaeth, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695656

## Opinion text

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
Rule 126, Pa.R.C.P., provides “[t]he rules shall be liberally construed to secure that just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The instant case is squarely within this rule.
The Majority notes that “[t]here being no apparent substantive difference between exceptions and a motion for new trial, it follows that Rule 1038(d) requires correct captioning merely as a matter of form.” Opinion at p. 249. Thus, under the Majority’s reasoning, it is clear that we are forced to sanction a holding which prevents a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of [this] action.” The Majority cites Rule 127(b) as authority for its position. That subsection provides as follows: “Every rule shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. When the words of a rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” I agree that if the holding which I propose frustrated a cognizable policy of Rule 1038, Rule 127 would mandate a contrary result. Cf. Rule 127 (c). But this is not such a case. To hold as the Majority does is to allow procedural rules to become an end in themselves. We should be mindful of Justice Stern’s sage counsel: “Procedural rules are not ends in themselves but means whereby justice, as expressed in legal principles, is administered. They are not to be exalted to the status of substantive objectives.” *251 McKay v. Beatty, 348 Pa. 286, 287 , 35 A.2d 264, 265 (1944). It was for that reason that Rule 126 was promulgated.
Therefore, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
WATKINS, President Judge, joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695656. Public record. Not legal advice.