Shelansky v. A. Weinfeld & Son

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Appellant complains that his judgment against defendant, described as A. Weinfeld & Son, was stricken off. The court below gave no reason for its action, nor does appellee’s brief supply any, though it suggests that a suit against A. Weinfeld & Son names no defendant.

An examination of the record shows tha.t on July 9, 1923, a summons in assumpsit was duly issued and that it was returned by the sheriff: “Served A. Weinfeld and Son, the within named defendants, trading &c., by handing personally July 10th, 1923, a true and attested copy of the within writ, to A. Weinfeld, one…