Seiple v. Pitterich

STRANAHAN, P.J.,

The issue presented by this case is whether appellants, Michael and Warren Pitterich, should have their appeal reinstated to this court despite the fact that they failed to comply with the requirements of Pa.R.C.P.D.J. 1005B by filing the proof of service of the appeal one day late. We believe that appellants’ *593petition should be granted for the following reasons.

The facts in this case reveal that plaintiff Seiple (appellee herein) received a judgment against defendant Pitterich (appellant) before a District Justice on August 1, 1984. On August 23, appellants filed a timely…