Pa. Higher Ed. Assist. Agcy. v. Devore, 406 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Pa. Higher Ed. Assist. Agcy. v. Devore, 406 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1998 · …an assignment does not confer upon the assignee any greater right, power or interest than that possessed by the assignor at p. 344 ✓
45 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Costello v. Primavera (pactcomplphilad, 1998-04-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Costello v. Primavera (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
pactcomplphilad · 1998 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
an assignment does not confer upon the assignee any greater right, power or interest than that possessed by the assignor
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rice Drilling B, LLC v. Scott, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
Assistance Agency v. Devore, 406 A.2d 343, 344 (Pa. Super. 1979), citing Craig v. E.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. Turner Construction Co.
Pa. · 1988 · confidence medium
It is well-settled that “[a]n assignment does not confer upon the assignee any greater right, power, or interest than that possessed by the assignor.” Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa.Super. 74 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pocono Farms East Ass'n v. Sanford
pactcomplmonroe · 1986 · confidence medium
In re Legislative Route 1018, 422 Pa. 594, 595, n.1 , 222 A.2d 906, 907, n.1 (1966); Marine Bank v. Huhta, 279 Pa. Super. 130, 139, n.5 , 420 A.2d 1066, 1070, n.5 (1980); Gee v. Eberle, 279 Pa. Super. 101, 120 , 420 A.2d 1050, 1060 (1980); Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa. Super. 74, 77, n.3 , 406 A.2d 343 , 344, n.3 (1979), quoting from In the Interest of Carroll, 260 Pa. Super. 23, 27, n.4 , 393 A.2d 992 , 995, n.4 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kathleen Phillips v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Devore, however, is of limited weight because it is based on the Pennsylvania court's belief that "Dauphin County has no relationship to the transaction (the formation or breach of the contract for the loan) except that it is the location of the assignee." 267 Pa.Super. at 77, 406 A.2d at 344.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West Penn Administration, Inc. v. Pittsburgh National Bank
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1981 · confidence medium
Since “[a]n assignment does not confer upon the assignee any greater right, power, or interest than that possessed by the assignor,” West Penn is precluded from bringing a conversion action against PNB. 9 Pa. Higher Education Assistance Agency v. DeVore, 267 Pa.Super. 74, 76 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Devore, however, is of limited weight because it is based on the Pennsylvania court’s belief that “Dauphin County has no relationship to the transaction [the formation or breach of the contract for the loan] except that it is the location of the assignee.” 267 Pa.Super. at 77, 406 A.2d at 344.
cited Cited as authority (rule) U. S. Steel Homes Credit Corp. v. South Shore Development Corp.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1980 · confidence medium
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa.Super. 78 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" T.A. v. Allen (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa.Super. 74 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979) (assignment contract confers to assignee no greater right or interest than that possessed by assignor).
discussed Cited "see" Lucas Enterprises, Inc. v. Paul C. Harman Co. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seale v. Hudgens, 538 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Civ.App.1976) (where assignee sues obligtor [sic] on note, venue is proper in county of either assignor’s or obligor’s residence).” Devore, supra, 267 Pa.Super. at 77 , 406 A.2d at 344 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harris v. Brill (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Supreme Court explained that any other result “would lead only to confusion and ... ‘forum shopping’ if the law were to permit suit to be commenced against a [defendant] in any county where any facet of a complex transaction occurred.” Id.; see also Pennsylvania Higher Education As sistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa.Super. 74 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979) (for venue purposes, the phrase “transaction or occurrence” does not include the performance of any act in formation of the contract, but is the ultimate formation of the contract itself.) While Thiele involved an action for breac…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ESTATE OF WERNER EX REL. WERNER v. Werner (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
In reaching its conclusion that venue was not proper in Luzerne County, the Court explained that the word “occurrence” does not mean “part of a transaction,” and that to hold otherwise would invite confusion and forum shopping where a lawsuit could proceed “in any county where any facet of a complex transaction *191 occurred.” Id. at 37; see also Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Devore, 267 Pa.Super. 74 , 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979) (for venue purposes, phrase “transaction or occurrence” does not include the performance of any act in formation of the contract but…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY
v.
David F. DEVORE, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 13, 1979.
406 A.2d 343
Cercone, President Judge, and Wieand and Hoffman.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 64%
Citer courts: Philadelphia County Court of C… (1)

[*75] James W. Carroll, Jr., Pittsburgh, for appellant.

[*76] Jane G. Penny, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This is an action brought in Dauphin County by the assignee of a note against the obligor. Appellant, the obligor, filed preliminary objections raising the issue of venue which were denied by the court below. This appeal followed.[1] Appellant now contends that the court below erred because: (1) venue in Dauphin County is not proper, and (2) even if venue is proper there, the case should still be transferred under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We do not reach the latter issue because we find that venue in Dauphin County is improper. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The facts of the case in the record[2] are as follows. On March 2, 1971, appellant signed a promissory note to the order of the Pittsburgh National Bank (Bank) for the principal amount of $750.00 at 7% interest annually. Appellant defaulted on January 1, 1972 when he failed to make the first installment due. On April 10, 1972, the Bank assigned the note to appellee, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), for value received. PHEAA is a Commonwealth agency located in Harrisburg, Dauphin Co. Appellant is a resident of Cheswick, Allegheny County. Bank is located in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County. The loan[*77] was transacted and the note was executed in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County.

An action in assumpsit may only be brought in a county in which (1) the defendant is served, (2) the cause of action arose, or (3) (which is asserted here by PHEAA) "where a transaction of occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(a). "Transaction or occurrence" does not include the performance of any act in the contract formation process but is the ultimate formation of the contract itself. Craig v. W.J. Thiele & Sons, Inc., 395 Pa. 129, 133-34, 149 A.2d 35, 37 (1959). An assignment does not confer upon the assignee any greater right, power, or interest than that possessed by the assignor. Camenisch v. Allen, 158 Pa.Super. 174, 178, 44 A.2d 309, 310 (1945); 6A C.J.S. Assignment § 73.

Here it is apparent from the record that every act in the formation and breach of this contract took place Allegheny County.[3] Dauphin County has no relation to the transaction except that it is the location of the assignee. This is insufficient under Craig to permit venue there. Since PHEAA as assignee can only bring suit where its assignor could bring suit, manifestly Allegheny County is the only place where venue is proper for this Action. See Seale v. Hudgens, 538 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Civ.App. 1976) (where assignee sues obligor on note, venue is proper in county of either assignor's or obligor's residence). Thus, appellant's preliminary objections should have been sustained.

Reversed and remanded.

WIEAND, J., concurs.

1 Initially, we note that appellate jurisdiction is present. Bloom v. Bloom, 238 Pa.Super. 246, 250 n. 3, 362 A.2d 1024, 1026 n. 3 (1976); Daugherty v. Inland Tugs Co., 240 Pa.Super. 527, 529, 359 A.2d 465, 466 (1976); Norman v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 228 Pa.Super. 319, 322 n. 3, 323 A.2d 850, 851 n. 3 (1974).
2 All that is before us is appellee's complaint, appellant's preliminary objections (verified) and Petition for reconsideration (unverified) and the orders and opinion of the lower court. There was no evidence taken by deposition, hearing, or otherwise. Therefore we must accept as true all the allegations in the complaint as true, plus the verified averments of the appellant to which no responsive pleading was filed.
3 In its brief, PHEAA has injected many facts not of record, which were relied upon by the court below, to the effect that it had a substantial role in the process of transacting this loan. "However, we are bound to consider only those facts which are in the record, and may not consider those injected by the briefs of counsel." In the Interest of Carroll, 260 Pa.Super. 23, 27 n. 4, 393 A.2d 993, 995 n. 4 (1978).