Fitzsimons v. Salomon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
XN ERROR. ladelphia county, upon which the general errors were rTT'HJS was a writ of' error to the Common Pleas of Phi- , “ assigned. Plea, in nullo est erratum.
Read the full summary
XN ERROR. ladelphia county, upon which the general errors were rTT'HJS was a writ of' error to the Common Pleas of Phi- , “ assigned. Plea, in nullo est erratum. The action was instituted by summons, against Thomas Fitzsimons and Rachel Heilbron administrators of Haym Salomon, upon a promissory note drawn by the intestate’s a8'cn 1 ¶ and indorsed to Ezekiel Salomon, the plaintiff below, The summons was issued to March term 1807, and returned by the sheriff “ copy left at the dwelling house of “ Thomas Fitzsimons, and nil habet as to Rachel Heilbronf ^llt mentioning the day of service. March…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The plaintiff in error in this case, has assigned a number of errors. I shall confine my opinion to one, viz. that there were only five days between the issuing and return of the summons. It does not appear, on the face of the summons, at what time it issued, nor does the return of the sheriff shew, on what day it was served. In order to ascertain the matter, the plaintiff in error alleged diminution; and a certiorari having issued from this court, the praecipe has been brought up, by which it is evident, that there were but five days between the issuing and return of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mengel v. Reading Eagle Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Sheip v. Price, Page & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Macavicza v. Workingman's ClubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Del Ponte v. Societa Italiana Di M. S. Guglielmo MarconiSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1905
- Morrison v. WetherillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.