Fenstermacher v. Fenstermacher

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Fenstermacher v. Fenstermacher

7 Pa. D. & C. 650, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 203

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedSeptember 21, 1925

DocketNo. 84

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C. 650 (Fenstermacher v. Fenstermacher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fenstermacher v. Fenstermacher, 7 Pa. D. & C. 650, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 203 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Iobst, J.,

The master and examiner recommended a decree in divorce. Evidently the master did not carefully examine the record papers or he would have noted an error in publication. From the record it appears that the whereabouts of the respondent are unknown. Therefore, the attorneys for the libellant proceeded by way of publication and procured an order of court for that purpose. An examination of the papers shows that the prothonotary inadvertently and erroneously inserted the name of Raymond A. Fenstermacher as the name of the libellant in the order for publication, whereupon the sheriff of the county in the publication erroneously used the name Raymond A. Fenstermacher, libellant.

The error is so apparent, and the Christian name of the party libellant as advertised so at variance with the correct name of the libellant, that the notice, if called to the attention of the respondent, might readily be ignored. She is not the wife of Raymond A. Fenstermacher, and, therefore, would not be interested in any divorce proceeding instituted by an individual of that name.

Now, Sept. 21, 1925, this case is stricken from the argument list, the appointment of the master revoked, and the libellant permitted to proceed with his case by proper publication, whereupon he may again ask for the appointment of a master and examiner.

Prom Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

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

Iobst, J.,

The master and examiner recommended a decree in divorce. Evidently the master did not carefully examine the record papers or he would have noted an error in publication. From the record it appears that the whereabouts of the respondent are unknown. Therefore, the attorneys for the libellant proceeded by way of publication and procured an order of court for that purpose. An examination of the papers shows that the prothonotary inadvertently and erroneously inserted the name of Raymond A. Fenstermacher as the name of the libellant in the order for publication, whereupon the sheriff of the county in the publication erroneously used the name Raymond A. Fenstermacher, libellant.

The error is so apparent, and the Christian name of the party libellant as advertised so at variance with the correct name of the libellant, that the notice, if called to the attention of the respondent, might readily be ignored. She is not the wife of Raymond A. Fenstermacher, and, therefore, would not be interested in any divorce proceeding instituted by an individual of that name.

Now, Sept. 21, 1925, this case is stricken from the argument list, the appointment of the master revoked, and the libellant permitted to proceed with his case by proper publication, whereupon he may again ask for the appointment of a master and examiner.

Prom Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C. 650, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenstermacher-v-fenstermacher-pactcompllehigh-1925.