Shepard v. Shepard

Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas

Shepard v. Shepard

40 Pa. D. & C.2d 800, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 81

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County

DecidedJuly 14, 1966

Docketno. 360

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 800 (Shepard v. Shepard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shepard v. Shepard, 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 800, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 81 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Shughart, P. J.,

The complaint in the above action was served outside the Commonwealth by registered mail, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1124(a) (3) (b). No testimony was offered at the hearing as to whether or not the signature on the return receipt card was that of defendant, as is required: Shomper v. Shomper, 7 Cumb. 174; Peters v. Peters, 12 D. & C. 2d 373; Godsey v. Godsey, 8 Cumb. 99; Mickley v. Mickley, 6 Adams 26; Kent v. Kent, 31 Lehigh 413. Since this deficiency can be corrected, the matter will be returned to the master for further testimony.

Order of Court

And now, July 14,1966, the above matter is referred back to the master hereinbefore appointed for the purposes outlined in the foregoing opinion.

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

Shughart, P. J.,

The complaint in the above action was served outside the Commonwealth by registered mail, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1124(a) (3) (b). No testimony was offered at the hearing as to whether or not the signature on the return receipt card was that of defendant, as is required: Shomper v. Shomper, 7 Cumb. 174; Peters v. Peters, 12 D. & C. 2d 373; Godsey v. Godsey, 8 Cumb. 99; Mickley v. Mickley, 6 Adams 26; Kent v. Kent, 31 Lehigh 413. Since this deficiency can be corrected, the matter will be returned to the master for further testimony.

Order of Court

And now, July 14,1966, the above matter is referred back to the master hereinbefore appointed for the purposes outlined in the foregoing opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Pa. D. & C.2d 800, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepard-v-shepard-pactcomplcumber-1966.