Dailey v. Iselin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 105, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. S20, continuing a cause in the case of J. J. Dailey and H. A. Dailey v. Adrian Iselin. Assumpsit on a written contract. - From the record it appeared that when the case was called for trial a plea in abatement which denied the legality of the service of the original summons was undisposed of.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 105, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. S20, continuing a cause in the case of J. J. Dailey and H. A. Dailey v. Adrian Iselin. Assumpsit on a written contract. - From the record it appeared that when the case was called for trial a plea in abatement which denied the legality of the service of the original summons was undisposed of. The plaintiff refused to file a replication, and the court thereupon entered the following order: Now, September 14, 1900, plaintiffs having refused to file replication as proposed, it is ordered,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Brown,
A plea in abatement was filed by the defendant in the court below, raising the question of its jurisdiction over him. When the case was called for trial, after having been continued three times, the court’s attention was called to this plea, and the very proper suggestion made that it must first be disposed of. Plaintiffs had not joined issue on it, ñor moved to strike it off; but, for reasons which need not be here stated, for they cannot be now considered, urged the court to ignore it and to irregularly order the trial to proceed with this undisposed of plea on…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Daley v. IselinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Chapalas v. PapachristosSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Durkin v. Beshlin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Warren County1921