Keystone Telephone Co. v. Diggs

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Keystone Telephone Co. v. Diggs

69 Pa. Super. 299, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 2, 1918

DocketAppeal, No. 254

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 69 Pa. Super. 299 (Keystone Telephone Co. v. Diggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keystone Telephone Co. v. Diggs, 69 Pa. Super. 299, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383 (Pa. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The sheriff made the following return: “Served Maggie F. Diggs, the within defendant, by handing, March 30, 1917, a true and attested copy of the within writ together with a copy of the plaintiff’s statement of claim to an adult member of said defendant’s family at 3216 Chestnut street in the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, the dwelling house of said defendant.” The rule granted on the petition to set aside the return of service was discharged. This action is assigned as error. Before the sheriff’s return was challenged, the defendant petitioned the court to open the judgment and permit her to enter a defense, but this request was denied for the reason that the petition did not set forth the character of the defense with sufficient particularity. The action of the court on this petition is not assigned as error.

This court, in Garrett v. Turner, 47 Pa. Superior Ct. 128, held that “the only ground for setting aside the service of the summons and statement suggested in the court below was that the return of the sheriff that they had been served on an adult member of the family of defendant at his residence was untrue, in that the member of the family to whom the summons and statement were delivered was not an adult. The return was good on its face and it ought not to have been set aside upon evidence aliunde, tending to establish that it was not true: Park Bros. & Co., Limited, v. Oil City Boiler Works, 204 Pa. 453; Ben. Franklin Coal Co., Limited, v. Pennsylvania Water Co., 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 628;” Wm. Flaccus Oak Leather Co. v. Heasley, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 127. It is unnecessary for us to discuss the reasons for this rule. Until the Supreme Court or the legislature change or modify the rule, it must continue to be the [302]*302law governing the effect of a sheriff’s return regular on its face.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

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

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The sheriff made the following return: “Served Maggie F. Diggs, the within defendant, by handing, March 30, 1917, a true and attested copy of the within writ together with a copy of the plaintiff’s statement of claim to an adult member of said defendant’s family at 3216 Chestnut street in the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, the dwelling house of said defendant.” The rule granted on the petition to set aside the return of service was discharged. This action is assigned as error. Before the sheriff’s return was challenged, the defendant petitioned the court to open the judgment and permit her to enter a defense, but this request was denied for the reason that the petition did not set forth the character of the defense with sufficient particularity. The action of the court on this petition is not assigned as error.

This court, in Garrett v. Turner, 47 Pa. Superior Ct. 128, held that “the only ground for setting aside the service of the summons and statement suggested in the court below was that the return of the sheriff that they had been served on an adult member of the family of defendant at his residence was untrue, in that the member of the family to whom the summons and statement were delivered was not an adult. The return was good on its face and it ought not to have been set aside upon evidence aliunde, tending to establish that it was not true: Park Bros. & Co., Limited, v. Oil City Boiler Works, 204 Pa. 453; Ben. Franklin Coal Co., Limited, v. Pennsylvania Water Co., 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 628;” Wm. Flaccus Oak Leather Co. v. Heasley, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 127. It is unnecessary for us to discuss the reasons for this rule. Until the Supreme Court or the legislature change or modify the rule, it must continue to be the [302]*302law governing the effect of a sheriff’s return regular on its face.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Pa. Super. 299, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-telephone-co-v-diggs-pasuperct-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack