Legal Opinion

Kemp v. Kemp

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County

Decided February 11, 1924Published

1Opinion of the Court

Hargest, P. J.,

— This case comes before us upon exceptions to the master’s report. The subpoena was signed by the prothonotary and not by the court. The subpoena and alias subpoena were returned “non est inventus.” The proclamation was not printed in the Dauphin County Reporter. It was printed in one newspaper and “directed” the respondent to appear at court on the third Monday of March, 1921, and answer the complaint. The master made an elaborate report in the alternative, to the effect that if the return to the subpoena was sufficient to authorize the issuance of the alias, and the alias…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Upshur v. Baltimore CityCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
  2. Collister v. FassittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  3. Dick v. ForsheySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  4. Kerr v. KerrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  5. People ex rel. Sherrill v. GuggenheimerNew York Supreme Court · 1899

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API