Mankos v. Mankos

Carbon County Court of Common Pleas

Mankos v. Mankos

45 Pa. D. & C.2d 274, 1968 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 193

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County

DecidedSeptember 10, 1968

Docketno. 20

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Pa. D. & C.2d 274 (Mankos v. Mankos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mankos v. Mankos, 45 Pa. D. & C.2d 274, 1968 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 193 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Heimbach, P. J.,

We have before us the master’s report recommending a decree a. v. m. We note defendant is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, R. D. No. 3, Bellefonte, Pa. Nowhere do we find that defendant was advised by the master of his right to appear personally at the hearing in defense of the matter and, if he did wish to attend, steps would be taken for his appearance. In the absence of such advice, the matter will be referred back to the master: Shaffer v. Shaffer, 26 York 80; Enable v. Enable, 67 D. & C. 380; Davidson v. Davidson, 1 D. & C. 2d 71; Freedman, Law of Marriage and Divorce, in Pennsylvania (2nd ed.) §519.

Wherefore, we enter the following

Order

And now, September 10, 1968, the record in the above case is referred back to the master, with direction to fix another time for hearing, setting forth in the notice to defendant that, in the event he desires to appear, proper steps will be taken so that he may appear and defend the action.

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

Heimbach, P. J.,

We have before us the master’s report recommending a decree a. v. m. We note defendant is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, R. D. No. 3, Bellefonte, Pa. Nowhere do we find that defendant was advised by the master of his right to appear personally at the hearing in defense of the matter and, if he did wish to attend, steps would be taken for his appearance. In the absence of such advice, the matter will be referred back to the master: Shaffer v. Shaffer, 26 York 80; Enable v. Enable, 67 D. & C. 380; Davidson v. Davidson, 1 D. & C. 2d 71; Freedman, Law of Marriage and Divorce, in Pennsylvania (2nd ed.) §519.

Wherefore, we enter the following

Order

And now, September 10, 1968, the record in the above case is referred back to the master, with direction to fix another time for hearing, setting forth in the notice to defendant that, in the event he desires to appear, proper steps will be taken so that he may appear and defend the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Pa. D. & C.2d 274, 1968 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mankos-v-mankos-pactcomplcarbon-1968.