Winrow v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan. 30. Griscom moved to set aside the sheriff’s return of service of a summons, which was in the following form; “ Served, by leaving a true and attested copy of the within writ at the counting-house of defendant, with his agent or clerk.” He said, the practice was .uniform in the District Court to interfere when the face of the return showed a defective service; and cited 2 Miles, 42, 164; 3 Yeates, 258; 6 Wharf: 66.
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
The practice in this state, commencing at an early period, is on motion to the’ court, at the instance of the defendant, to set aside a sheriff’s return when the writ is defectively served. Bujac, endorsee, v. Morgan, 3 Yeates, 258, is an instance of this kind; and see Kleckner v. The county of Lehigh, 6 Whart. 66, where the same course was pursued without objection. It may in some cases be necessary, for the security of the defendant, who cannot be brought into court except in the manner pointed out by law, &e. The practice is to enter an appearance de bene esse, and ask the judgment of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kleckner v. County of LehighSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Bujac v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1801
- Blair v. WeaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hughes v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Jeannette v. RoehmeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Everett v. Niagara Ins., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clinton County1891
- Rogers v. Metropolitan Life Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Sweeney v. GiroloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.