Karp v. Ray-N-Beau Construction Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Karp v. Ray-N-Beau Construction Co.

29 Conn. Supp. 519

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

DecidedJune 13, 1972

DocketFile No. 88926

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Conn. Supp. 519 (Karp v. Ray-N-Beau Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karp v. Ray-N-Beau Construction Co., 29 Conn. Supp. 519 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Hanrahan, J.

A writ, summons and complaint dated March 6, 1972, recited a return day of the third Tuesday of May, 1972. Process was served on the defendant on March 17, 1972, and returned to the court on March 20, 1972. The defendant’s appearance was filed on May 11, 1972, together with a [520]*520motion to erase the complaint from the docket because it was returnable more than two months from the date of process.

•Section 52-46 of the G-eneral Statutes requires that service of process returnable to the Court of Common Pleas shall be made at least twelve days, inclusive, before the return day. Section 52-48 provides that process in civil actions, if brought to the Court of Common Pleas, may be made returnable on any Tuesday in any month and all process shall be made returnable not later than two months after the date of such process.

The court concludes that the writ was duly served and returned to the court within the time set out in the statutes and therefore jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was secured by the court. The insertion in the writ of a return date more than two months after the date of the process might be abatable in a proper case. But here the defendant by its general appearance submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and thereby waived its right to object. See Pierino v. Miner, 20 Conn. Sup. 160, and Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. Becker, 25 Conn. Sup. 448.

Whereupon the court denies the motion to erase, grants the motion to amend and overrules the objection to the amendment.

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

Hanrahan, J.

A writ, summons and complaint dated March 6, 1972, recited a return day of the third Tuesday of May, 1972. Process was served on the defendant on March 17, 1972, and returned to the court on March 20, 1972. The defendant’s appearance was filed on May 11, 1972, together with a [520]*520motion to erase the complaint from the docket because it was returnable more than two months from the date of process.

•Section 52-46 of the G-eneral Statutes requires that service of process returnable to the Court of Common Pleas shall be made at least twelve days, inclusive, before the return day. Section 52-48 provides that process in civil actions, if brought to the Court of Common Pleas, may be made returnable on any Tuesday in any month and all process shall be made returnable not later than two months after the date of such process.

The court concludes that the writ was duly served and returned to the court within the time set out in the statutes and therefore jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was secured by the court. The insertion in the writ of a return date more than two months after the date of the process might be abatable in a proper case. But here the defendant by its general appearance submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and thereby waived its right to object. See Pierino v. Miner, 20 Conn. Sup. 160, and Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. Becker, 25 Conn. Sup. 448.

Whereupon the court denies the motion to erase, grants the motion to amend and overrules the objection to the amendment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Conn. Supp. 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karp-v-ray-n-beau-construction-co-pactcompl-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack