Blackwell v. Joseph

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Blackwell v. Joseph

7 Pa. D. & C. 790, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 408

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

DecidedMarch 29, 1926

DocketNo. 568

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C. 790 (Blackwell v. Joseph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackwell v. Joseph, 7 Pa. D. & C. 790, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 408 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Koch, J.,

The Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, as amended by the Act of May 23, 1923, P. L. 325, allows a motion to strike from the record a pleading which does not conform to the provisions of the act: “Provided, That such motion to strike from the record any such pleading shall be filed and a copy thereof served upon the' party filing such pleading, or his attorney, within fifteen days after a copy of such pleading shall have been served upon the opposite party or his attorney.”

An inspection of the record discloses that the plaintiff’s statement of claim was filed Aug. 7, 1925, and that service of the statement was accepted for the defendant by her attorney on Aug. 25, 1925, but that the motion to strike off the pleading was not filed until Sept. 21, 1925. The provision above quoted from the Act of 1923 required the defendant to file her motion within fifteen days after Aug. 25, 1925. As the proceeding here is entirely1 statutory, and, as the defendant has failed to conform to the statute regulating the subject before us, she cannot invoke the remedy she now seeks. Counsel made the motion at chambers on Sept. 7, 1925, but we may not disregard the provision of the statute that required the motion to be filed on or before Sept. 9th.

The motion is dismissed.

From 3VI. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Koch, J.,

The Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, as amended by the Act of May 23, 1923, P. L. 325, allows a motion to strike from the record a pleading which does not conform to the provisions of the act: “Provided, That such motion to strike from the record any such pleading shall be filed and a copy thereof served upon the' party filing such pleading, or his attorney, within fifteen days after a copy of such pleading shall have been served upon the opposite party or his attorney.”

An inspection of the record discloses that the plaintiff’s statement of claim was filed Aug. 7, 1925, and that service of the statement was accepted for the defendant by her attorney on Aug. 25, 1925, but that the motion to strike off the pleading was not filed until Sept. 21, 1925. The provision above quoted from the Act of 1923 required the defendant to file her motion within fifteen days after Aug. 25, 1925. As the proceeding here is entirely1 statutory, and, as the defendant has failed to conform to the statute regulating the subject before us, she cannot invoke the remedy she now seeks. Counsel made the motion at chambers on Sept. 7, 1925, but we may not disregard the provision of the statute that required the motion to be filed on or before Sept. 9th.

The motion is dismissed.

From 3VI. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C. 790, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-joseph-pactcomplschuyl-1926.