Partridge v. Powell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 316, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1894, No. 554, malting absolute a rule to set aside service of process. Rui e to set aside service of process.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 316, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1894, No. 554, malting absolute a rule to set aside service of process. Rui e to set aside service of process. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant is a resident, of Wytheville, Wythe county, Virginia, and also the complainant in a suit in equity now pending in the circuit court of Wythe county, state of Virginia, wherein the appellants, who are for the most part citizens of Philadelphia, are respondents. In December, 1894, at the conclusion of the taking of certain depositions on his…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There appears to be nothing in this record that would justify us in sustaining either of the specifications.
For reasons given by the learned president of the common pleas, we are all of opinion that the service of the writ of summons was rightly set aside. There is nothing in the case that requires special notice.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Burroughs v. Cocke & WillisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Walker's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Cowperthwait v. LambSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Roschynialski v. HaleDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1913
- Peet v. FowlerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.