Walsh v. Kirby
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Feb. T., 1908, No. 435, making absolute rule to strike off judgment in case of William P. Walsh and Loretta S. Walsh, his wife, v. F. M. Kirby and F. J. Weckesser, trading as F. M. Kirby & Company. Rule to strike off judgment. Before Halsey, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Error assigned was order making absolute rule to strike off judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
This is an action in trespass against a partnership consisting of two members. Judgment for want of an appearance was entered under the rules of court. On a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be stricken off the learned court below held that the summons had not been properly served and the rule was made *196absolute. The action is against the partners named trading as a partnership. The sheriff made the following return: “I hereby certify that on the 6th day of January, 1908, I served the within writ upon the within named defendants, F. M. Kirby & Company,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harper v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Grier & Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
- Ross v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fairman Bros. v. Ogden Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Nay Aug Lumber Co. v. StoneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Callahan v. KeeganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Hirsch v. SamulanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Romona Oölitic Stone Co. v. BolgerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.