Kees v. Clark
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 175, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1892, No. 167, on verdict for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Mary Rees et al., Executrix and Executors of James Rees, deceased, v. Lewis N. Clark et al. Assumpsit for material and work. Before Rodgers, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante verdicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellants who are the executors of J ames Rees, deceased, against Lewis N. Clark, W. B. Sneathen and William T. Brenneman. The *619original summons was issued November 5,1891, to tbe first Monday of December, 1891, and was returned “non est inventus.” Plaintiffs’ statement of claim was filed at the same time the summons issued. On September 5, 1893, an alias summons was issued to the first Monday of October, 1893, which was also returned “ non est inventus.” On September 18,1901, a pluries summons was issued to the first…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. OrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- McClurg v. Fryer & AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Curcier's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
3Cited by15 opinions
- Prettyman v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Mayo v. James Lees & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Zoller v. Highland Country ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Galbraith v. GahagenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Mayne v. Jacob Michel Real Estate Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1944
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.