Lehigh Valley Insurance v. Fuller

81 Pa. 398, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 167
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 8, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 81 Pa. 398 (Lehigh Valley Insurance v. Fuller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lehigh Valley Insurance v. Fuller, 81 Pa. 398, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 167 (Pa. 1876).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sharswood

delivered the opinion of the court,

The decision of the court below upon the motion to open the judgment is not the subject of review here : Bunce v. Wightman, 5 Casey 335; Henry v. Brothers, 12 Wright 70; Ringwalt v. Brindle, 9 P. F. Smith 51; Bredon v. Gilliland, 17 Id. 34. Nor can we inquire into the question of fact whether Soellner, upon [400]*400whom the service of the writ Avas made, was an agent of the 'corporation garnishees, upon whom a lawful service could be made. The affidavits and depositions are no part of the record, and are not before us: Calhoun v. Logan, 10 Harris 46.

The only question which properly arises is as to the regularity of the judgment by default for want of appearance. That depends upon whether the. return by the marshal showed a laAvful service upon the garnishees. The defendants in error rest it upon the first section of the Act of May 4th 1852, Pamph. L. 574, entitled “ An Act relative to courts in this Commonwealth.” It provides “ that when any person or persons, being residents of this CommonAvealth, shall engage in business in any other county at the time of the issuing of such writ or process, it shall be lawful for the officer charged with the service thereof to serve any Avrit of summons or any other mesne process upon the agent or clerk of any such defendant at the usual place of business or residence of such agent or clerk, and to have the same effect as if served upon the principal personally.”

Conceding that an attachment execution, Avith the clause of scire facias to the garnishee embodied in it, is a “ summons or other mesne process,” the legislature has seen fit to provide that the service shall be “at the usual place of business or residence” of the agent, and in no other way. A personal service is not sufficient. Why, it is not our place to inquire. Ita lex scripta est. It is clear that the return must shoAV on its face a legal service : Winrow v. Raymond, 4 Barr 501; Wilson v. Hayes, 6 Harris 354 ; Weaver v. Springer, 2 Miles 42.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Gehrken's Appeal
50 Pa. D. & C. 594 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1944)
Emery v. Gilkeson
42 Pa. D. & C. 357 (Chester County Court of Common Pleas, 1941)
Williams Et Ux. v. Meredith
192 A. 924 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Hughes v. Hughes
158 A. 874 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Glazer v. Sanet
94 Pa. Super. 480 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Snyder v. Butz & Clader Co.
7 Pa. D. & C. 398 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Hatch v. Alamance Railway Co.
183 N.C. 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Hatch v. . R. R.
112 S.E. 529 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
1912 OK 397 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Stamey v. Barkley
60 A. 991 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Jeannette v. Roehme
9 Pa. Super. 33 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Pa. 398, 1876 Pa. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehigh-valley-insurance-v-fuller-pa-1876.