
    The General State Authority, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff v. George M. Ewing Company et al., Defendants. Fred Loffredo et al., Additional Defendants.
    Argued March 11, 1977,
    before Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Menoer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.
    
      
      Michael A. Madar, General Counsel, with him Arnold L. 'Wain,stein, Assistant Counsel, and Richard D. Holahan, Assistant General Counsel, for plaintiff.
    
      Edward E. Knauss, III, with him Metzger, Wiclcersham, Knauss S Erb; Robert W. Maris; John M. Elliott; and Dilworih, Paxson, Kalish & Levy, for defendants.
    
      Walter W. Wilt, with him Eepford, Zimmerman & Swartz; Warren S. Radler; and Saperston, Day <& Radler, for additional defendant, Dow Chemical Co.
    April 13, 1977:
   Per Curiam

Opinion and Order,

The parties agree that' the primary question argued before the Court on March 11, 1977, on these preliminary objections is whether the statute of limitations can be asserted to bar a claim by the General State Authority. On March 11,- 1977, the same day this, case was argued, this Court filed its decision in General State Authority v. Kline, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 232, 370 A.2d 402 (1977), a case that raised the identical question and held, with an opinion by Judge Blatt, that the statute of ■ limitations does not apply to actions brought by the General State Authority.

Accordingly, we will enter the following

Order

Now, April 13, 1977, the preliminary, objections of Dow Chemical Company to the complaint joining it as an additional defendant are overruled. . 
      
       There was a subsidiary question of whether one of the additional defendants, Dow Chemical Company, could be joined as an additional defendant on the theory of sole liability if the statute of limitations was a bar. The question is now moot in this casé. .
     