Weaver v. Springer
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a summons in case issued to November return day of September term, 1836. The return day was the 7th day of the month. The return of the sheriff was as follows: “ Summoned by leaving a copy at place of residence. “ October 24, 1836.” The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the service of the writ should not be set aricle, upon the ground that the sheriff in his return had not sufficiently stated the mat,over in which the service of the writ was made.
Read the full summary
THIS was a summons in case issued to November return day of September term, 1836. The return day was the 7th day of the month. The return of the sheriff was as follows: “ Summoned by leaving a copy at place of residence. “ October 24, 1836.” The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the service of the writ should not be set aricle, upon the ground that the sheriff in his return had not sufficiently stated the mat,over in which the service of the writ was made. The 2d section of the act of 13th June, 1836, (pamp. 572.) is in these words: “ A writ of summons shall be executed by reading…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Pettit, President.
The 2d section authorizes either of two modes of personal service: the one “by reading the writ in the hearing of the defendant,” and the other “ by giving the defendant notice of the contents of the writ, and by giving him a true and attested copy thereof.” It also authorizes, if the defendant cannot conveniently be found, either of two modes of executing the writ by leaving a copy: the one “ by leaving a true and attested copy at the defendant’s dwelling house, in presence of one of the adult members of his familyand the other if…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lehigh Valley Insurance v. FullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876